Wikipedia talk:Wikimedia Strategy 2017/Cycle 2/The Most Respected Source of Knowledge

What impact would we have on the world if we follow this theme?

Individuals would start their knowledge searches at Wikipedia. It would move the world towards the dream of a universal library of information. TeriEmbrey (talk) 14:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipedia will become an acceptable, respectable form of tertiary literature. I imagine that the respect will also confer some level of respect (even prestige) for its editors. This will attract further, respectable editors. Perhaps "Wikipedia Editor" would show up on CVs. ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 20:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I just added the following to my CV, under "Professional & Community Service":

Wikipedian (volunteer editor), Wikipedia, 2008-present. (Why is this important?)

  - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 02:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Some insightful and helpful answers to these questions on Quora:

• Would you list Wikipedia editor under "volunteer experience" on your resume?
• Is it a good idea to list Wikipedia edits in one's resume?
• Can I add "Wikipedia Editor" in my resume as volunteer experience?

  - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 03:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think that Wikipedia can become the most respected source of knowledge. That doesn't mean Wikipedia shouldn't be one of the highest quality sources, or that we shouldn't work to improve the quality of our information. However, there is a significant barrier to Wikipedia achieving this goal, & it is part of the structure of the project: we report information, we do not interpret it. And interpreting information in an intelligent & insightful way is an undeniable requirement of being the most respected source of knowledge.

  Having said that, I want to emphasize that I do not want to change our rules about no original research. It takes someone with extensive knowledge & experience to provide high-quality & respected interpretations. If we allow anyone to add their interpretations of data, we will end up with everyone & anyone pontificating on matters. (If you want to limit who contributes to an online encyclopedia in order to achieve high-quality & respected interpretations, a better model might be Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.) So trying to chase after the top position will only demoralize us, when simply providing the best information that we can will get us acceptably close. -- llywrch (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is one of the world's most trusted online encyclopaedias, and we all know that. There are editors to make sure info is right, admins to stop vandalism and many more. My only complaint is it could be sorted into topics, because many times pages can get overlapped, meaning say for example, there is a main page called "Meat" and then someone creates an amazing encyclopaedic article about beef or lamb. This is what I think would improve this wiki (in fact, ALL wikis including Simple English, Herman etc.) and make it 100% success by 2020. ExultantCow64 (talk) 09:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Could you be looking for something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines by any chance? —♫CheChe♫ talk 16:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The outlines are rarely followed unfortuntely. I agree that better and more formal organization would be of great value. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• I think that we need to improve the quality and reputation of Wikipedia so that Wikipedia will become accepted as a cited source, currently in many academic circles Wikipedia is unaccepted because of the fact anyone can edit it. -- (Kappa 16) (talk) 12:15, 14 May 2017

• We can reduce conflict and increase understanding between communities by creating neutrality in knowledge battlegrounds. Whether it's religion, politics, philosophy, history or economics, there is nowhere else on earth where all perspectives can come together to create a single narrative. Today, we know and understand this. By 2030, the whole world should understand the value of wikipedia's role in these knowledge battlegrounds. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• We currently live in societies that are increasingly divided (not just politically), and as such it is critical to have a mediating and neutral source of information available to all so that they can receive the highest quality information without bias. In this way, we can help to unify our fractured world, and this is why I believe this topic to be the most important the Wikimedia foundation could pursue in the coming years. This means putting a higher emphasis on fixing broken and/or non-neutral articles, as well as ensuring that all information is relevant and cited with a credible source. Swanare (talk) 04:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• I think Wikipedia has pretty much achieved the status of "Most Respected Source of *General* Knowledge" already. Why do we get so many hits each day otherwise? Why do people donate? I think our policies on citation, NPOV, NOR, have lifted us into that status of "I'll start my knowledge search with Wikipedia". While people might say an academic journal or university text book or other sources might be more respected sources of knowledge in particular topic spaces, most of those sources are not freely-available to everyone, often require a high level of existing knowledge of that topic space to understand them (inaccessible to a general readership), and finally they are in a niche topic space. Wikipedia covers vast topic spaces, is free to access, and is (mostly) written in terms a "general reader" might understand. We suspect we are already at the stage where people look at Wikipedia first and only look beyond Wikipedia if it has not met their needs. So I think our challenge is rather how to maintain this status, by adding new content, filling content gaps, while keeping older content up-to-date and our online citations deadlink-free. Kerry (talk) 06:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Out of curiousity I put the question of "Should Wikipedia aim to be the Most Respected Source of Knowledge" to a senior university research librarian to see what she would say. She said "I think it already is", saying that a lot of questions that would once have come to the Reference Desk are now self-serviced with Wikipedia and that an enquiry at the Reference Desk is likely to be prefaced with "I looked in Wikipedia, but it didn't answer the question of ..." or "I looked in Wikipedia and it has a citation to XYZ and how do I get hold of it?". If so, it would be great if we had an easy way to get the reader (or the library reference desk) to tell us about missing content. I know we trialled aFeedback system a while back, which was eventually withdrawn (most of the feedback was not actionable), but it might be more effective if it was more specifically targetted at missing content. Kerry (talk) 02:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I probably should add that this library is one at which I have run Wikipedia edit training sessions, so has a track history of seeing the benefits of Wikipedia. It might be interesting to ask the question at a range of libraries (local, state, university, specialist) to see if this is a widespread view or not amongst librarians. Kerry (talk) 02:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia may well be a respected source of knowledge in some subject areas, but my experience in the marketing/ advertising area suggests that too many articles require substantial improvement before they become useful to the typical user. I have detected many, many issues - here is just a small sample:

Source doctoring: This consists of copying prose from one source (typically a very low-level source such as study notes or lecturer-generated powerpoint slides), but then adding different sources throughout the prose to suggest that the material had a more academic origin. This is a form of fabrication and is rarely challenged because most editors only look for a high quality source, but do not check to see if the material has been correctly interpreted or cited.

Prose doctoring: which consists of going through some copied content and replacing every 6th to 8th word with a synonym from an online thesaurus, presumably in an effort to mask the true source of the content, (and avoid plagiarism detection software). Prose doctoring often results in inadvertent changes to the meaning of original prose.

Fabrication: adding new information to sourced content. For example, on the Marketing page there was a table outlining the marketing orientations to which had been added span of dates for each orientation. These dates were not in the original source, and the process of adding the dates served to conflate the concepts of a marketing orientation with a marketing era thereby adding to confusion and biasing the rest of the article.

Errors of omission:' Definitions or concepts copied from a source, but with important words or phrases omitted, thereby altering the meaning entirely and in many cases resulting in an entire article adopting a skewed focus. These are rarely challenged, providing that the definition has a good source.

Loose use of terms:' Too many terms are used very loosely. e.g. Throughout many marketing articles, the term, word-of-mouth referral has become word-of-mouth marketing - so a customer action (a referral) is incorrectly elevated to to the status of a branch of marketing. Similar examples proliferate in the marketing area.

Very few of these issues can be rectified because in most cases they have been present in the article for 8-10 years or longer, and the army of patrollers are highly resistant to changing any long-standing content, and are even more resistant to new content being added. I have found that the best way to have this type of content removed is to mount a copyvio challenge, because the patrollers will not challenge this in the same way that they challenge modifications or amendments to pre-existing content. Yet, I believe that it would be so much easier if the patrollers would just relax on the reversions and let new editors try to rectify some of these errors, which in the hands of an experienced writer/ editor are actually not too difficult to fix. BronHiggs (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I find it interesting to see how many people here believe that Wikipedia's quality is already high, because I've found it highly variable and as such it's no surprise to me that it is not considered a quality source in it's own right. Controversial topics, politicians, etc are often poor quality and changing them can lead to conflict and edit battles. I've been trying to fix some Australian politicans' pages, and often there is content that has obviously been taken straight from the politician's own webpage, puffery included. There are edit battles about their career and political views, with bias creeping in not only in what is included but also what is excluded (selective attention). I am a new editor, and have found some experienced editors are very good at knowing the "rules" and norms of wikipedia but are using them to create a slanted view of the topic matter. For example, they can quote a politician making a claim, without providing the necessary context that would indicate the claim is not actually true - as such a casual reader might think that what the politician has said is a "fact" when the politician may have been lying or spindoctoring. I am also aware that we - myself included - can have unconscious biases, so these editors may not feel like they are being biased but their own beliefs and values mean the content is not truly neutral. (And further down this page is dicussion about systematic organised propaganda). I understand that there are other topics that are less controversial that may be a very high standard, but what proportion of pages are trully neutral and reliable? Wikipedia as it stands is the best of what is available, however overall is far from being as accurate as standard encyclopedias. Powertothepeople (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipedia needs trustworthy information to survive and thrive, and to further become "where facts go to live" for the benefit of our entire species. Given (slow) progress in journalistic ethics and practices, alternatives may evolve. Cnewmark (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. The internet is flooded with misinformation and Wikipedia needs to be the impartial oasis that people can come to for their facts. This is particularly important in an era where our politicians and media increasingly don't care about the truth and will lie outright and manipulate people. On a related note, in Australia we have a publicly funded media organisation that runs an independent "Fact Check" to test political claims, and quality journalists rely on this information to sort fact from fiction in an era of fast news. Wikipedia should be a place where individuals and journalists can "fact check" (check the facts) on any significant topic, knowing that it is accurate, neutral, and independent of bias. Powertothepeople (talk) 03:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Nowadays, Wikipedia actually has an important amount of trustworthy content. But the fact that it can be edited almost right away might be a feeble point, with which people can't be 100% confident of what they are reading. Of course, I'm not implying that editing lows the quality of its information but in my opinion, a further control of it might be useful to gain the respect Wikipedia deserves as a main reference of information worldwide. The impact of achieving a full respectable reference web of knowledge would be really transcending. For now, you have to make sure every Wikipedia quote has its reference and then check yourself where the information you just read comes from. Nevertheless, achieving this subject about making Wikipedia a trustworthy source of knowledge, will mean that anyone reading any article will have the confidence that what they are reading is the actual true fact itself, with no need of checking other sources. AnnaCo (talk) 00:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Most articles on Wikipedia are a reliable source if information and it could become the best, most international research encyclopedia.Contributing is a learning process for everyone as each person grasps the advantages of altruism and becomes there own critic as to quality, neutrality and relevance.It's important as well to be responsible for an article which you have worked on to check occasionally, to see that editing over a long period has not made the article unbalanced, not readable, and is the concise information you would like to see .paula clare (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has been most trusted and respected source of knowledge. It has a higher impact on people across universe. Currently in a survey by Blue Sapphire Digital, this is found that 99.9% of students from class I referred Wikipedia do complete there homework. Over 80% of graduates and professional s prepare their career following wiki. This is the only platform which shouldn't be misused. All we need is authentic information with geneuin users and efiors. Raavi Mohanty 10:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raavimohantydelhi (talk • contribs)

How important is this theme relative to the other 4 themes? Why?

I think that this theme is actually quite important. Wikipedia is currently regarded in the public eye as a useful jumping-off point for research, but that it is incredibly unreliable and lacks citations. In order to change that view, something must change on our end. MereTechnicality ⚙ 20:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• This theme may impinge upon the themes of "Healthy, Inclusive Communities" as the demand for prestige shuts out less educated or capable editors. "The Augmented Age may help editors focus their time on content creation, rather than policing. Towards the aim of developing respectable material, it will be necessary to pursue the goal of "Engaging in the Knowledge Ecosystem." To be respected by all, one must reach all. To be the most respectable source, the knowledge accumulated must span the word, as a "A Truly Global Movement." ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 21:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
• This is why people read Wikipedia; this must be the highest priority. MER-C 04:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
• Per my comment in the section above, I consider this the highest priority. However, many of the five themes are interlinked - we are not going to become such a respected source unless we have healthy, inclusive communities and continue to penetrate the knowledge ecosystem. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
• Per my comment below, this is the most important theme. If our information is useless than we are useless. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
• Per my comment in the section above, this is by far the most important theme Wikimedia could possibly pursue. We need this kind of non-biased, relevant, and credible information available to all so that there is no doubt to our legitimacy and effectiveness, as well as helping to mend what seems to be an increasingly divided society in many respects. Swanare (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• It is the main goal. The other themes are in support of it. Kerry (talk) 06:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• I am constantly amazed at how often Wikipedia is cited in peer-reviewed journal articles and introductory text-books. It is all the more surprising when we note that these articles and books are often citing incorrect/ conceptually flawed information provided in Wikpedia articles. Wikipedia is becoming a primary source, and therefore, has a responsibility to ensure that information is accurate and conceptually sound. BronHiggs (talk) 02:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• Agreed, this is the main goal, Wikipedia information needs to be trustworthy. Cnewmark (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I hate to differ, however, I would place this theme as the second most important priority, after community. Community comes first IMHO because it takes care of the volunteers who are needed to write & edit the content - without whom Wikipedia will become outdated and obsolete - and currently, there's a high turnover and not enough volunteers to keep up with the demand. Better training and support for new editors would increase the quality of their contributions rather than risk them undermining the work of experienced editors. A stronger healthier community can then work together to improve the quality of content. However, I do agree with you that Knowledge is, of course, the whole point of Wikimedia's existence so it is also highly important!!! I see Community as the means to achieve improvements in quality of Knowledge. (They work hand in hand). Powertothepeople (talk) 04:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I think this is the most important theme. I don't think that Wikipedia can become the most respected source of information because it is always under revision and new editors are always joining. Because of this, I don't think it will ever be as definitive as an introductory textbook written by experts, but I think Wikipedia can be a close and widely accessible second most respected source of information. I think fostering a collaborative community of editors supports this goal, but I don't think it is the main one. I think we all start out as inexperienced editors and should do what we can to encourage people to stay (i.e. don't revert without explanation). I think the current structure of allowing anyone to edit is important for the recruitment of interested parties. I think it is one reason why Wikipedia succeeded when other projects failed. I have a final thought, the citation of Wikipedia in academic articles should generally not be the norm. Wikipedia should serve as a body of knowledge of what is known and since this information just summarizes what is known and accepted (i.e. an encyclopedia) its citation in academic literature, or college essays, should continue to be fought against. Theropod (talk) 06:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Quite simple, actually: if the source of information isn't trustworthy, you can have as many articles as you want, that it won't be relevant. It would mean we are giving priority to content amount over quality. So, to give Wikipedia a future, first we have to make sure that its way of working provides trustworthy knowledge, and then we will be able to improve it for an even better source of information. AnnaCo (talk) 01:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Focus requires tradeoffs. If we increase our effort in this area in the next 15 years, is there anything we’re doing today that we would need to stop doing?

Spend less energy on mobile search functionalities. TeriEmbrey (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• The largest tradeoff that comes to mind is Wikipedia's openness towards editors. Although Wikipedia currently endorses some level of protectionism, it may be difficult to achieve this goal without resorting to further protectionism. Consider why people respect other sources of knowledge, like major, public universities. When you think of a university, you think of an institution that rigorously vets its professors, generators and disseminators of knowledge. As such, you respect the institution and the knowledge it produces/displays. Perhaps Wikipedia will have to more scrupulously vet its editors in the future to achieve this strategic goal. ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 16:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with User:Biochemistry&Love about respectability of Wikipedia as a tertiary source, but have to opposite prediction. I think that for most articles, lack of contribution is more of a problem than low-quality contribution, which causes the patchy and inconsistent coverage that can be bad for our reputation. In most cases, increased engagement leads to better articles, since the average edit is still constructive. Overall, though, I think that protecting pages will still remain a rare, necessary tool, but most stub/star/C pages need more input. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 07:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
• We will have to figure out how to enable experts to enter the community without crossing swords with someone who's guarding a page. It's not an uncommon experience for someone to edit a page, have their work reverted by a guardian, and decide that there are other, more easily accessed ways to contribute to society. I have heard of this in communities like r/AskHistorians in Reddit, which has done a good job of explaining to newcomers - historians both professional and amateur - the community's expectations for its members. This may mean that we exchange the universal editing ideal for a different editing process that enables us to become "the most respected source of knowledge" in the world by 2030.Ezratrumpet (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

• I think this is the most important theme (what use is the English Wikipedia and its sister projectes if they are not trusted. This means that the quality of articles must be up to par and Wikipedia need to work on its use as a free advertising platform or soapbox by people who want to capitalize on its success as the 5th most popular website in the world. The most functional way to help achieve this goal would be ACTRIAL, and recognition of the importance of quality control for new pages by the WMF. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes! A capital idea TonyBallioni. Strongly support.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: could you explain please what do you mean by 'recognition of the importance of quality control for new pages by the WMF'? What quality control, specifically? RC? WikiProjects? AfD? 1:1 guidance? What would be the role of WMF in that? Maybe WMF doesn't remember about sth related to quality when it organizes events? or when it communicates outside the Wikimedia world? (I'm an experienced Wikipedian, I'm just from plwiki, not from here, and I might not to get things straight). And ACTRIAL means basically to prohibit registered but not autoconfirmed to create articles? SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 18:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@SGrabarczuk (WMF): sure: the English Wikipedia has become the 5th most popular website in the world and arguably the default source of information for anyone born after the year 1990. With that great success there are several issues, but I'll highlight what I view as the three most important: biographies of living persons (BLPs), advertising, and verifiability. On BLPs: it is exceptionally easy to ruin someone's life simply by posting false information about them on the English Wikipedia. We are better at catching this than we used to be and pure attack pages are almost always deleted, but things still slip through. Advertising: a clever marketing director can send an AfD into three weeks of overtime based on press releases for a startup that has never been profitable and will probably be bankrupt within the year. This is a local problem with our deletion process, but could be greatly reduced by restricting page creation to autoconfirmed accounts. Verifiability: see citogenesis. The English Wikipedia being the default starting source for the people who are now becoming journalists at major international publications poses a huge problem if the articles they are drawing from aren't verifiable. Again, we are pretty good at catching this for controversial material, but things do slip through the cracks and it is easiest to slip through in my opinion when the text is in the original version of an article.

ACTRIAL means having a trial run of restricting page creation to autoconfirmed users. An important part of this is how to not scare off new users and get them in a framework where they can create draft articles for review before publication in mainspace so they have better articles that are also less likely to be deleted. DGG and Kudpung are probably the two users who have thought the most about this, and I was in a very extended wikibreak during the time it was originally proposed, but have come to support it because if you look at the new pages backlog, most of the problem pages are in fact created by new users, and deleting their articles instead of helping them work on a draft is far more likely to scare them off.

As to how WMF can help: One of the biggest ways WMF could help in the process would be by helping create a workflow for new users so that they get acclimated to Wikipedia, get sent where they want, and aren't greeted by people who oftentimes just created an account two weeks ago and give them a talk page message that is overwhelming and full of alphabet soup. I hope this was helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipedia has two incompatible functions. It wants to be a reliable, credible encyclopedia, while being "edited by anyone". This latter position means that articles can be edited by those who are poorly educated, lack facility in English, have no little or no knowledge in the topic of the article, or edit maliciously. It is little wonder that Wikipedia is still widely regarded as inaccurate, even though bad edits are usually addressed promptly. To gain universal acceptance, Wikipedia needs to stop anonymous edits. Every new editor must be registered, and their first 10-20 edits must be reviewed before they are allowed to edit in article space. Put simply, too much time and effort is spent chasing down poor and bad contributions. Those are resources that could better be spent creating and improving genuine content. It's time for Wikipedia to grow up and weed out poor editors. WWGB (talk) 02:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The issue with that is that Wikipedia is designed to be open. I do agree with you on some level, but I really don't think that it's going to happen. MereTechnicality ⚙ 04:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• Agree with TonyBallioni. Some types of bad articles (advertising, in particular) are worse than no article. There are already quite a few articles on en.wp where participation by new users is a net negative; we should be more liberal in semi-protecting. I also want to see page creation limited to extended confirmed users -- we have enough shit articles as it is. MER-C 04:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I think XCON is a little bit *too* restrictive for article creation. But I do believe that restricting article creation to more experienced users (perhaps autoconfirmed is enough?) and using more liberal semiprotection is a good idea. MereTechnicality ⚙ 20:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• If the current state of affairs persists, there won't be a Wikipedi in 15 years (at least not as we know it). When Wikipedia was created by Wales and Sanger it was probably never realised in their wildest imagination how big Wikipedia would become and the impact on society it now has. A lot of controls were therefore not thought of. Stricter controls are now urgently needed, not only to maintain quality and standards, but to reinforce and retain the very reputation for quality and accuracy that Wikipedia imagines for itself. Unfortunately, the WMF refuses to acknowledge this, the problem is getting out of hand, and those who were trying to do something (e,g. me, other admins, and the more qualified and prolific new page patrollers) have burned out of patrolling and given up yelling for change.

The required changes are obvious: WP:ACTRIAL, the creation of a proper landing page, and some coherence in the 1,000+ advice essays (Wikipedia has become one massive set of bureaucratic instructions). TonyBallioni is right on the ball with his comments above, but he is only reiterating what I have gotten hoarse over through the last 7 years and now finally thrown my arms up in desperation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I think, strategically article creation must be made as hard as possible, may be even restricted to users with quite some experience like a year and 10K edits. We have already created the bulk of our articles, and efforts should be directed not at new article creation but on improvement of existing articles and cleaning up spam and promotional articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• I agree that we need to find a balance between quality and "open to all". I think the reason academic publications do enjoy a high level of credibility is because for an academic, your name is your brand and your reputation. You don't misbehave in an academic publication because your real name is on that publication. I'm a retired academic and I edit under my real name on Wikipedia just as I did professionally. Knowing I am real-world accountable holds me to a higher standard of behaviour; it's as simple as that. So, let's start with eliminating the IPs. Then let's start with making real-world verification of ID a requirement to confirm a pseudonomynous user account; that provides real-world accountability but allows people to contribute without exposing their real name to the public. Without WMF (or whoever they delegate) citing your real-world ID, your powers are restricted on Wikipedia to an "unverified" account. I disagree wit "we don't need more article creation", our world produces new things all the time so of course we need new articles, but I am more than happy that we restrict article creation to more experienced and verified users. Similarly Articles for Deletion, Categories for Renaming, etc type discussion/votes should be restricted to the verified and experienced users. How much undetected sockpuppeting is taking place currently? We simply don't know, but surely it's worth weeding out. Kerry (talk) 07:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
• A concrete proposal for having "grades of experience" is we should restrict contributors to doing things we know they understand. What is wrong with having some short on-line training on "how to cite" and the associated policies with a multiple-choice quiz at the end? Or making tables? Or anything else. "Citation Achievement Unlocked!" Then we can have users with "certifications" for different skills and that entitles them to do certain kinds of edits or to participate in certain kinds of discussion. We could also extend the idea to Project membership having some kind of entry training/test (e.g. imagine if anyone who edited an article tagged by Project Australia already knew that Australian articles use DMY dates and Australian English, what a great time-saver that would be for everyone). Just as we do with university courses, Wikipedia skills could have pre-requisite structures and people can choose which directions they will follow, either it be bot development or writing about medical topics or judging reliable sources in Brazilian history. I would restrict editing of higher quality articles to higher certified users while allowing lower certified users to work on lower quality articles. This keeps Wikipedia open to all (and we have a lot of content gaps so we need everyone) but maybe we don't need everyone able to experiment with the higher quality articles. Kerry (talk) 07:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with a lot of what people have said above regarding the potential tension and tradeoff between "open" versus "reputable knowledge," and just wanted to add that it is not necessarily a mutually exclusive situation - I will discuss a potential solution in the next section. (Allow users to have different roles and permissions that play to their strengths and abilities). Powertothepeople (talk) 04:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• More reliable and trustworthy information is a requirement, so are efforts to prevent harassment of editors. So, this isn't the only priority. Funding won't be a constraint; perhaps getting people with the right skills and courage may be. Cnewmark (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

What else is important to add to this theme to make it stronger?

• To make this theme stronger, Wikimedia Foundation will need to expand its staff and provide more support to GLAM institutions. Some objectives/activities that would support this strategy include presenting at museum and library conferences (local, regional, national, and international), expand its partnership(s) with OCLC, have experienced Wikimedia Foundation staff and admins set up project tables and mentor new GLAM participants during their first year on Wikipedia/Wikidata/ Wiki--- , and work to make Wikidata easier to use with tutorials geared towards GLAM communities. TeriEmbrey (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I did not know what GLAM stood for, so for others in the same boat, here's a quick explanation and links to further info. In this context, GLAM = Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums. | Disambiguation page for GLAM | Start-class article: GLAM (industry sector) | And the nicely designed GLAM-WIKIMEDIA Outreach Project   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 05:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• To prevent the loss of inclusivity, focus on educating the common man to be a better editor. As the Mozilla Internet Health Report notes, many people are interested in creating online content, but confidence is a concern. Can we make editors more bold? ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 21:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

• Interesting comment, Biochemistry&. I will add that editing especially with good faith in mind can be extremely daunting, because you quickly learn that Wikipedia has a lot more customs that you didn't know about. There is no easy learning path to understanding Wikipedia in terms of its community, manual of style, etc.Nuvigil (talk) 02:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Excellent points Biochemistry&Love and Nuvigil. A lot has been done, and is being done to support new editors. Unfortunately, these efforts receive scant attention from most editors, i.e., dissemination occurs in dribs and drabs. We need to up our ante by doing a little more each day (or each week) to welcome and encourage new editors. You both probably do this already. I decided to join the Kindness Campaign. Other opportunities include:

Teahouse - peer support for new editors

Harmonious editing club - keep the peace, peacefully

Adopt-a-User - experienced editors can "adopt" newer editors, helping to mentor them along the way as they learn about Wikipedia

Welcoming committee

Editor assistance

  - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 05:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

There is no easy learning path to understanding Wikipedia in terms of its community, manual of style, etc. There is! WP:EPTALK covers almost everything a new editor needs to know, followed by WP:TALKDONTREVERT and WP:SOURCES. These three short "pages" (no need to read the entire policy, only the linked sections) can be covered in five minutes and tell editors everything they need to know to be a functional editor of Wikipedia. If these policies would be linked near the "save changes" button, quickly all editors will know everything they need to know. Bright☀ 11:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I would like to clarify "there is no easy learning path". I meant kind of what you said at the end with that link at the end. The documentation is obviously abundant and organized, but getting to that point was more of a random discovery for me. Years ago, it didn't take me until I had violated an editing norm and someone told me before I knew about the new editors resources. In other words, it might be better to say no easy path to the learning path.Nuvigil (talk) 11:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

It can probably be summed up as 'Wikipedia has an abundance of documentation, however a shortage of clear communication.' Many people have taken great effort to provide clarity by creating extensive documentation, but it is too much for a new user to get through, and not organised with the user-experience in mind. It is better than nothing, but falls short of being intuitive. It's the difference between the old days when people would read the manual before they turned on a new technology product and keep it by their side until they got the hang of things, to now being able to switch something on and use it easily, and only refer to the manual for rare trouble-shooting. Powertothepeople (talk) 01:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Make sources accessible. As much as possible, cite open-access well-cited peer-reviewed papers and textbooks that are widely available and widely-used in their field. These are the two most accessible high-quality sources, and Wikipedia should encourage their use above low-quality sources, perhaps more prominently in WP:RS. Readers should be more aware of the quality of sources used so they can more accurately judge the weight of the information. Discourage unsourced or "self-sourced" information as much as possible. Wikipedia is as good as its sources and their availability. Bright☀ 11:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• Encourage short quotations in footnotes. This will give readers much greater confidence on controversial topics, and will make verification easier. It would require strengthening of WP:CITE and clarification of WP:NFC#Text. There is an excellent discussion going on right now on this topic, and different views currently abound. Some comments include "This is a model of what we should be doing across articles in Wikipedia as a best practice", "Quotations of the length exhibited here are absolutely the norm in serious scholarship and can greatly enhance the quality of an article," and "From a Stanford libraries guideline on US copyright law, I note the following: "Because the dissemination of facts or information benefits the public, you have more leeway to copy from factual works such as biographies than you do from fictional works such as plays or novels"" Oncenawhile (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

+Strongly support. I often include quotes. Law review articles do this a lot, which I appreciate as a non-lawyer as it helps me understand the reference better.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 08:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• One way to increase respect would be to provide optional identity verification, so the question of who bears the responsiblity for a Wikipedia account becomes more clear. ChristianKl (talk) 12:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Educate re-users about how to use Wikipedia. In 2030, I don't want to see a single newspaper, book, or TV program say "According to Wikipedia..." Smart re-users know that Wikipedia cites reliable sources for all noteworthy claims, so there is no need to cite Wikipedia. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is published under a CC-BY-SA license. The BY part means "by attribution", so newsapers, books, and TV programs should mention Wikipedia as their source. This is correct behaviour; it is wrong not to acknowledge Wikipedia as the source of the information. Kerry (talk) 05:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The optimal position is a middle ground between Finnusertop's and Kerry Raymond's positions, and is related to the discussion below at #Show_Article_Quality_Rating_to_ALL_Users. For articles of above average quality, we should be happy for readers to attribute Wikipedia per Kerry Raymond. For low quality or otherwise unreviewed articles, readers should be encouraged to "look through" the article and attribute only the underlying source - in such a case they could state that they found the source via Wikipedia. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think we should always encourage readers to explore more deeply through citations, external links, and further reading, regardless of stated quality. But the principle of citation is always "Cite it where you saw it". If you only look at Wikipedia, then you cite Wikipedia. If you do find the information in one of the Wikipedia article's citations, then it's correct to cite that citation instead (and there's no requirement to attribute to Wikipedia in that case, just as we don't acknowledge Google Search to find us a useful website). Kerry (talk) 07:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• Work with partners who are already facing the challenges of trustworthy sources and information. (Please see below.) Cnewmark (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• Allow users to have different roles and permissions that play to their strengths. I believe there are several ways for Wikipedia to be both "open" to new users and still maintain quality control. First Wikipedia must recognise that different users have different strengths and weaknesses, which is not just a matter of experience (though can be exasperated by lack of it) and motivations. Training is necessary for new users, however previous suggestions along these lines assume that all contributors are on the same "track" and are committed to becoming a highly skilled allrounder Wikipedia editor - when in fact many may want to contribute in a more limited manner.

For example, there are millions of casual users of Wikipedia who are knowledge experts who don't want to be "Wikipedia editors" but who do want to correct mistakes when they see them on Wikipedia. Having a way for them to flag the issue - like a small float box that says "see something wrong? let us know" - where they can quickly and easily communicate what needs correction into a form, without making them register or learn Wikipedian is important. An editor can then review these suggestions and make any necessary changes to the published page without such casual contributors having to undertake time intensive training etc.

Others may be interested in contributing in a manner that works to their strengths (and forgives them their weaknesses). If Wikipedia allowed differentiated roles and had a project management approach behind the scenes for the creation of content, different people could contribute in a limited capacity that suited them: 1) people pose questions on a topic, 2) researchers find facts and citations, 3) writers write the content clearly, 4) tech-savvy people format it correctly for publishing on Wikipedia, 5) top level editors do quality assurance, 6) everyone is able to discuss, plan, manage and implement tasks, easily and cooperatively, working to their strengths.

This could result in high-quality work without every editor having to master every skillset themselves. For example, someone whose written English isn't great could still do research and citations or format content for publication, etc. I know some brilliant scientists whose written English is appalling. Conversely, I know people with excellent written English who are not very technically inclined and may struggle to contribute in the current Wikipedia environment.

There would be different levels of permissions based on user skillset, experience, and track record. More would be done behind the scenes - on the equivalent of the talk page (but hopefully an improved interface that better helps collaborative project management) - which anyone could contribute to in whatever capacity they are able. However actually changing the official "published" content would be restricted to those who have already proven themselves to be highly capable editors who adhere to the Wikipedia charter.

This creates a low barrier for entry for new editors to contribute, without risking damage to the quality of work already done by those who came earlier (or wasting people's time with edit wars). Registration is not necessarily an issue, as new and/or unregistered people would only be able to add their comments to the working group, not change the official published content. This would prevent both vandalism and unintentional newbie mistakes.

Another related idea is to have a clear quality "grading" system for different Wikipedia pages. Pages that are up to the same standard as would be expected of a professionally edited encyclopaedia might be "Wikipedia Pro" pages, while others that are not yet up to scratch might be "Wikipedia Draft." Once a page becomes "Pro" level there are restrictions on who can edit it, and edit requests are posted on the talk page for discussion prior to the page being changed. This allows organisations to trust Wikipedia Pro and cite it as a trusted source. Draft pages are "open" to a broader range of users (in fact, there might be a multi-step grading level ranging from Draft 1 to Draft 3 as an article improves in quality before an article qualifies as Pro, and different users have restrictions on what level they can edit directly versus post suggestions on the talk page). This allows new users to contribute and practice their skills in a safe space, while highly skilled editors have a lot of the legwork done for them and may just need to give some advice to less experienced contributors, or a final polish to articles, or "approve" that the page meets the criteria for Pro. Powertothepeople (talk) 04:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• Networking users with specific interest and knowledge with specific tasks and articles, integrating experts and keeping them engaged. Relevant to this are my suggestion for a streamlined WikiProject system over at Healthy, Inclusive Communities and WP:Expert help. For the relevance and accessability of Wikipedia content (and "show[ing] the most relevant information to people when and where they need it") there also is WP:Smart city uses of Wikipedia. --Fixuture (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Who else will be working in this area and how might we partner with them?

There are numerous potential partners in this arena. Here are a few of the major ones: American Alliance of Museums, American Library Association, American Association for State and Local History, International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, National Council on Public History, and OCLC. Start by presenting at their conferences, have an exhibit booth in their exhibit halls, and run miniature drop-in edit-a-thons out of the exhibit booth. Pay the conference attendance and travel fees for interested and established Wikipedia editors and admins to help staff the booths and talk about what they've added to Wikipedia/Wikidata/ Wiki---  ; choosing the Wikipedia editors and admins to help staff the booths could be an annual contest at Wikimania or through the Wiki websites. TeriEmbrey (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• Academic institutions. Professors have the knowledge base to identify excellent literature to cite from. Offering recognizable, academic accolades (recognized outside of the Wikipedia community) for their contributions could be persuasive. ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 21:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I really like that idea Biochemistry&Love. The legal profession seems to "give back" consistently, e.g., law schools start legal clinics for underserved populations, and (some) private law firms provide time, resources, and even salary to their attorneys who perform pro bono work. How can we persuade universities to recognize editing Wikipedia as a high status public service contribution?   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 05:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• The News Integrity Initiative and related efforts, like the Trust Project and the International Fact Checking Network, are addressing issues including methodical determination of reliable sources. These are natural partners; a long story, but getting traction surprisingly quickly. Cnewmark (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• Quality journalists and writers. They do a huge amount of research for their indepth articles and books, and there is a mutual benefit if they can trust wikipedia to be a legitimate source of quality information, and they likewise contribute what they know about a topic from their own research. Good journalists value truth, neutrality, and freedom of information. Could create topic lists and identify quality writers and journalists who have published on the same topic - reach out to them to ask if they have anything further to add to what is already on wikipedia, Powertothepeople (talk) 04:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• Philanthropic Foundations. Philanthropic Foundations might provide partnership or grants to allow Wikipedia to hire expert editors to create and verify high quality content in topic areas of particular interest to the Foundation. For example, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and/or Wellcome Trust may provide a grant to improve medical pages on wikipedia (they are both supporters of Open access to information and have collaborated together before). Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is also a supporter of Open information and has financially helped Khan Academy which has some similar philosophies to wikipedia. Also, smaller foundations that have very specific interests, such as they may be named after a deceased person of interest - instead of paying for a statue or something perhaps they would pay a grant to wikipedia for a professional editor to ensure quality neutral content related to the person or their area of interest (meet the foundation's charter, but also neutrality rules) in a openly accessible way for all. Powertothepeople (talk) 04:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• Open Access and Open Research organisations, such as Europe PubMed Central, Gates Open Research, Faculty of 1000, Scholarpedia, etc. They have done a lot to make scientific/academic knowledge more publicly available, however there is a known problem that academic journals are written in a manner that is not easy for the public to understand. In the interest of disseminating information to a greater audience, wikipedia is well placed. A partnership could involve wikipedia editors partnering with the academic/scientists to create high quality wikipedia content. Powertothepeople (talk) 04:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Other

Proactive and reactive

I think in order for Wikipedia in particular to become a respected source of knowledge, we need to have a two-pronged approach (the proactive and the reactive.) The example I always go back to is that of "Jar’Edo Wens" for why we need to stay vigilant.

The proactive:

• More comprehensive automatic review of every new article created (bots can check word count, for instance) Interlaker (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
• Daily highlighted article on the main page of Wikipedia for the purposes of targeting for improvement Interlaker (talk) 17:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

The reactive:

• Any "citation needed" tags older than 30 days should result in the accompanying uncited text being wholly removed Interlaker (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
• Orphaned articles older than 5 years should be automatically deleted (by a bot) with cursory automatic notifications sent to the creator at intervals beforehand Interlaker (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
• Articles flagged for more than 2 years for not citing any independent sources should be automatically deleted (by a bot) with the same notifications sent to the creator Interlaker (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I second the motion! Excellent proposals Interlaker. :O)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 01:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I am uneasy with the first reactive suggestion. While the content is uncited, the fact that it is stable for a long period of time often means it is accurate. It is just that nobody has gotten around to adding a reference. Once content is deleted, there is little chance anyone will retrieve it from the edit history and so the content, even if accurate and stable, will likely never be restored. This effectively eliminates the possibility of a reference being added for the content in the future. In my view, automatic deletion of content in this manner may lead to a decrease in the quality of the encyclopedia. Sizeofint (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Sizeofint. There are a large number of {{cn}} tags used where there is nothing controversial about the content, but someone thinks it should be possible and would be desirable to provide a citation. Citation needed is not the same as content disputed. Maybe we need a different way to mark things that are disputed and those which are just not yet cited. wholesale deletion of material just because someone tagged it as citation needed and no-one has gotten round to adding one would be seriously disruptive.• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm with Pbsouthwood on this. There is stuff that is very hard to find citations for. Not every topic attracts an academic journal article. If someones says that Smallville's Catholic church opened in 1914 in a ceremony officiated with Bishop Dunne, I'll probabaly add citation-needed but I will think it plausible because I know that Dunne was the Archbishop at that time and would probably have officiated at such an event. I think we always have to assess risk of not having a citation or not having as reliable as citation as might like. There are risks for BLP (reputation damage to the subject of the article) and medical articles (people decide to treat themselves with Vitamin C instead of seeing a doctor for a momre effective treatment). But for local history, what is the risk to the reader if the catholic church actually opened in 1916? Or even if there never was a catholic church in Smallville? Not a lot. I think we always have to assess the likelihood that you think it is plausible and the harm that could be done if it's incorrect. This is why we have watchlists; I have a good knowledge in my topic areas and I'll have a good knowledge of sources not readily found with a google search. So my ability to determine "plausible" in my topic areas is good (but not in other topic areas). I think we need to retain some respect for people who are active in a topic space to have good judgement on these things. Kerry (talk) 07:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Marketing

The WMF needs to stop marketing en-WP as easy to edit. Editing in many topics is hard, both technically and in terms of subject matter. You are setting people up to fail and to be disappointed.Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

+Strongly support. Great point Jytdog.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 01:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Hear hear. MER-C 04:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

It is easy to edit. Unfortunately what they do not mention is that it is easy to edit badly. Not so easy to edit well enough to be worth the effort. Often quite difficult to edit well enough that someone else does not have to repair the incidental damage. Nevertheless, we do need new editors, as most of the work is still to be done. Maybe new editors should be encouraged to start on talk pages, but that is undermined in that talk pages are probably more difficult to edit. So we have Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit (if they have internet connection), but not so many can improve. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Per Pbsouthwood: It is easy to edit. Unfortunately what they do not mention is that it is easy to edit badly. It depends what you mean. Jytdog. Editing is easy for the contributor who knows their subject matter and how to write a report. It may be less easy for some, but Wikipedia is not here to teach creative writing skills - authors and editors have to bring those with them from what they learned in school, and good prose, especially of the style that is acceptable for an encyclopedia is a talent that not everyone possesses.

If you're talking about mark up, I don't find Wikipedia any more difficult to post to than any run-of-the-mill web forum, in fact some are more difficult; nobody of my generation or younger - (and that's rather a lot of people) should find it harder than posting a reply to a blog or messaging with a smart phone. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I meant content creation, not so much the technical stuff. By the kind of thing I think should change, I mean stuff like this that is full of rosy bullshit. Creating good encyclopedic content is hard and takes work, and keeping bad content out of Wikipedia is work and drudgery. (I am not complaining about the work - it is pretty much what I "signed up" for; my first edit was removing blatant advertising). I also don't agree that creating good WP content is easy for subject matter experts. Many of them have a hard time wrapping their head around what we do here and try to write here like they do professionally, creating reviews here in WP or reporting "hot news" from their field here in WP. We do need to market the project to bring new editors in, but it should not pretend like it is magical or easy. (this talk grapples with the actual issues pretty well) --Jytdog (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC) (fixed thanks :) Jytdog (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC) )

Jytdog, I know Erik - I wouldn't say well, but enough to have collaborated with with him closely both on and off Wiki. He grapples with a lot of things pretty well and I was sorry to see him go. Keeping bad content out of Wikipedia is indeed work and drudgery, and that is why the more seriously concerned editors have now given up in despair in the face of a sudden, rapid increase in the backlog at NPP that can no longer be contained and no one is prepared to pull a bell and a whistle to counter it. BTW, I'm not sure if this is what you really intended to say: ...but it should pretend like it is magical or easy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I feel bad for not putting time into NPP. I respect the people who do, mightily. Jytdog (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, I don't think you need to feel bad about anything. For the last two years or so you're one of Wikipedia's most active editors. My edit count doesn't reflect the actul time I spend here - generally abot 3 hours a day and unfortunately, most of it at that coal face. It's not all patrolling new articles though, a lot of it is chasing patrollers away from it who haven't got a clue what they are doing. Unfortunately the community in its wisdom insisted that they be allowed to do it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with User:Pbsouthwood and also think that it is easy to edit and get started. It just needs some specific basic knowledge. But that just takes a few minutes if you get the right instructions or figure it out yourself. I mean the edit button is highly visible as are the formatting buttons in the editor, the preview button and the rest of the wikitext ...and not much more is needed for basic edits (the more problematic part is the cite button on top and knowledge of some of the policies). It changes of course if you want to create tables and the like. I think we should keep telling people that it's easy to edit but also make sure they have gotten the few basic infos when they're registered. I feel that people for some reason shy away from making edits and find the UI outdated but it's not really hard. In videos that aim to get more people involved we could include a 20 second segment that shows these basics. --Fixuture (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata

If this is really a goal, then Wikidata needs to be rigorously excluded from en-WP projects until Wikidata matures and there are procedures in place to ensure that new data added to WD is reliably sourced. The entirety of Wikidata needs to be verified as well. That is a mountain of work. Wikidata is not currently a repository of accepted knowledge - en-WP's mission is to provide the public wit accepted knowledge. The missions of the two projects are simply different and that difference is sharpened by the goal stated in this page. Jytdog (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Academic Research Related to this Strategy

Please post peer-reviewed scholarly articles and reasonably well-written blog posts about such research here.

• The Decline of Wikipedia:The community that built the largest encyclopedia in history is shrinking, even as more people and Internet services depend on it than ever. Can it be revived, or is this the end of the Web’s idealistic era? by Tom Simonite, October 22, 2013 - MIT Technology Review.

• Halfaker, A., R. S. Geiger, J. T. Morgan, and J. Riedl. "The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration System: How Wikipedia's Reaction to Popularity Is Causing Its Decline." American Behavioral Scientist 57, no. 5 (2012): 664-88. doi:10.1177/0002764212469365

• Aaltonen, Aleksi, and Stephan Seiler. “Cumulative Growth in User-Generated Content Production: Evidence from Wikipedia.” Management Science 62, no. 7 (October 30, 2015): 2054–69. doi:10.1287/mnsc.2015.2253.

• For Wikipedia’s Army of Volunteer Editors, Content Begets Content: A new study quantifies the “cumulative growth effect” in online content production platforms. by Bill Snyder, August 22, 2016, Insights by Stanford Business School (blog)

• Why do people volunteer to edit Wikipedia? Skeptical Software Tools (blog)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 02:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• "Wikipedia losing editors," Physics.org, 2013

• I find it bizarre that every article posted above is about the decline in the raw number of editors. I understand that this is an important metric for WMF but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the strategy point stated on this page. What are you thinking? Jytdog (talk) 03:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm thinking that in order to become The Most Respected Source of Knowledge, we need to recruit--and especially--retain good editors. These articles highlight the problem, and some of them suggest some solutions. Also, please do post additional scholarly articles that address different aspects of this goal.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 04:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Who would seem what is considered neutral?

As I scroll past a lot of pages and read white a lot I've come to find that an awful lot of the subjects on pages are not exactly neutral. For example. Mark Dice is a "right-wing" political analyst, but on his page there is not political analyst label. Stuff like that. Do who is in charge of everything being neutral and how do you suggest making it possible?. Escape49 (talk) 01:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Good question Escape49! (By the way, your Username is red because all links that do not (yet) have a page are red links (links that do have a page are blue). Once you create your User page your User page link will become blue. And don't worry, it's easy to create a Userpage--there's even a User Page Design Center!) Getting back to your question ... Wikipedia has an important policy on that topic called Neutral point of view. As you said, we (Wikipedians) should write from a neutral point of view. Of course, reasonable people can disagree about what is neutral and what isn't. The best thing to do if you think an article is biased is to post your concern on that article's Talk page. Before you do that though, I highly recommend reading the Talk page guidelines first as it will help you express your concerns in the best possible way so that others fully understand your concern. Welcome to Wikipedia!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 08:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I edit frequently in the Israel-Palestine area (see e.g. WP:IPCOLL). Outside of wikipedia, very few, if any, scholars and journalists on the topic are considered to be neutral - commentators from either side throw accusations around lightly at those who are brave enough to make it their career to write about the subject. It makes one question if there really is such a thing as neutrality on these deeply contentious topics.

In wikipedia, neutral means properly reflecting the weight of reputable sources on a given topic. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Mark Dice has been trolling WP via twitter, trying to get his fans to come make the WP article about him, describe him with his self-selected title of "media analyst". The trolling even extends here. I will note that one thing that drags down many parts and whole pages of WP is promotional abuse of WP by advocates (some who are "just" fans or haters, and some of whom have financial or other conflicts of interest) and is an obstacle to making en-WP "The Most Respected Source of Knowledge." Jytdog (talk) 02:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality, systemic bias, writing for the opponent

There is a good WP essay on systemic bias, which suggests a “tendency to show an American or European perspective on issues due to the dominance of English-speaking editors from Anglophone countries.” Wikipedia works by consensus, but if most editors come from the same group of countries (Anglophone and allied), does a consensus of editors necessarily lead to balanced coverage of international disputes?

Has WP made enough effort to “write for the opponent” (the title of another WP essay) while covering (for instance) the recent conflicts in and around Ukraine?

Suggestions:

• maybe the essays about systemic bias and writing for the opponent should be upgraded to guideline status and ultimately to policy status?
• if we really want to “write for the opponent” perhaps we should make more use of the opponent’s own media, at least as a first-hand source for the arguments being put forward by the opponent?
• should we aim for greater co-ordination between Wikipedias in different languages, especially on contentious international questions? Should we be looking at whether Wikipedias in languages other than English present perspectives not sufficiently covered in the English-language WP?
• perhaps develop multilingual WP talk pages to bridge between users with different languages? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 10:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

This seems to be a pertinent comment: Cross, Douglas (2016). "Whither Wikipedia". Nanotechnology Perceptions, vol. 12, pp. 50-52 (doi=10.4024/N07CR16D.ntp.12.01) http://www.researchgate.net/publication/311437071_Whither_Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankababel (talk • contribs) 12:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

What one must consider is that some Western countries are, as can be proven by statistics, half-way functioning democracies (which may explain a part of their hegemonial position). On the other hand, people like Putin, Assad, Khadyrov, the Saudis etc. etc. must also be the focus of critical investigation and depiction. This has got nothing to do with systemic bias, even though the argument always comes up. Defend your indefensible dictators somewhere else. --Mathmensch (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

You think Wikipedia should present what is said by critics of e.g. the current government in Saudi Arabia, but not what is said by the regime itself in its defence? I think WP needs to present both sides — what is said by the Saudi government and by its critics. Perhaps WP needs a policy or at least a guideline (e.g. along the lines of the current WP essay Writing for the Opponent) to settle the question of how we are to write about those whom you call "indefensible dictators"? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree and would add "unconscious bias" to the list. While one would expect that someone who has "knowledge" on a topic would be the best to write on the topic, it can also mean we have an underlying personal connection even if it is only an emotional one. On controversial issues, our values, beliefs, culture, and personal point of view skews our perspective even if we try to be neutral. People can strictly speaking "stick to the rules" of wikipedia but still in their choice of what information they include versus exclude can bias the overall content. I had thought that perhaps if we had a kind of "page swap," where a page that I feel is biased and I want fixed I could swap it with someone who has enough distance from it that they are unlikely to be biased, and vice versa, so fresh independent eyes can look it over and fix any issues of bias. Of course this would be cumbersome and is not likely the highest priority at the moment. I wonder how traditional encyclopaedia's dealt with issues of bias? Powertothepeople (talk) 02:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with the previous post, since it attempts to undermine the rules in suggesting that they are insufficient. Such arguments certainly support dictators like Assad, Trump, Putin etc. in upholding their status. Emotional connections are effectively counteracted in following the rules, that is, in being neutral, in including relevant information (such as information on rigged elections, torture camps, media control and so on), in relying on reliable sources and in removing promotional content.--Mathmensch (talk) 07:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

"I disagree with the previous post, since it attempts to undermine the rules in suggesting that they are insufficient." I don't believe it is 'undermining' the rules to raise the issue that application of the rules may be insufficient - as evidenced by the discussion and edit history of any controversial subject. The original poster raises an important point. Furthermore, unconscious bias is well documented as affecting us all.[1] Ignoring one's unconscious biases and pretending one is completely "neutral" is naive: “Our research found that the extent to which one is blind to her own bias has important consequences for the quality of decision-making. People more prone to think they are less biased than others are less accurate at evaluating their abilities relative to the abilities of others, they listen less to others’ advice, and are less likely to learn from training that would help them make less biased judgments.”[2] We know our knowledge of history is tainted, that "history is written by the victors", and "Knowledge acquired in school - or anywhere, for that matter - is never neutral or objective but is ordered and structured in particular ways"[3] [4]. At least history has some of the wisdom of hindsight to draw on, while editing of modern events is even more fraught with bias.

No one is suggesting that Wikipedia become a mouthpiece for Trump/Assad/Putin's supporters. It is about trying to find a solution that acknowledges we all edit from a perspective that is biased, and what would be a better way to deal with this, particularly in international affairs? I understand you mean well in wanting to ensure that dictators are not supported. However, claiming that because we are from 'democratic' nations that we have a superior perspective is not much different from the old colonial mentality that argued 'we' are more civilised 'them.' This argument lacks respect, empathy, and equality for others and their perspectives. Ironic when people who champion 'democracy' want to exclude others.

Personally, I believe we gain a more informed perspective by listening to various points of view, and it may be the case that controversial topics need more "discussion" before publication so that all sides can be considered. I was travelling through Europe during the Brexit vote, and it was interesting that the perspective of the issue in western media, particularly Australian media and in my social media stream, portrayed it as an issue of race/culture, which was completely different to the points put forward by various people I met. For example, a Spanish-Bulgarian couple living in Spain gave further insights from their perspective: the EU is not democratic; countries like Germany have all the power while poorer countries are not listened to; the EU was founded primarily for "trade" (commercial interests) rather than for citizens; they felt strongly that it was wrong and detrimental how the EU treated Greece during their financial crisis, especially since Greece had forgiven Germany its debts after World War II, Greece was a victim of the international financial crisis which was caused by the finance sector of wealthier countries and suffering increased due to using the 'euro' currency; and they thought it was good that Britain had stood up to the EU and hoped that the EU would now listen to criticism and make changes. Now some of what they said might be their opinion rather than fact, however, there were many good points raised that people in Australia - being on the other side of the world, different culture, different language - were likely unaware of.

Now, if you look for a page about "criticism of the EU" here on wikipedia, the closest you get is one titled Euroscepticism [5], it repeatedly uses this term "eurosceptism" and "eurosceptics" even though it notes that people who criticise the EU do not themselves necessarily use or favour this term or believe it an accurate term. i.e. the whole page is biased against those who criticise the EU right from the minute they label them "eurosceptics." It notes that 61% of Spanish people do not trust the EU, yet doesn't do much to explain why they don't trust the EU and what their criticisms are. The article claims "the rise in populist right-wing parties in Europe is strongly linked to a rise in Euroscepticism on the continent" yet the citation goes to an research article that summarises "euro-scepticism is much less relevant than perceived ethnic threat in explaining why particular social categories... are more likely to vote for the radical right," and further down the page mentions that the Spanish political party criticising the EU is a left-wing party. The English speaking coverage of these issues frequently tries to write off critics as all being racist, uneducated, unemployed, conservative, far right-wing, etc - and while some critics might fit this profile, there are others like the couple I met who are intelligent, educated, left-wing, employed, academics and professionals. Few of the criticisms they shared with me have been explored on Wikipedia. Does this show a cultural bias in Wikipedia? How should it be addressed? Powertothepeople (talk) 02:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Propaganda and public relations

In order to become a truly respected source of knowledge Wikipedia must deal with the elephant in the room: the influence of propaganda and public relations specialists seeking to influence public opinion covertly.

It is no secret that governments and corporations invest copious resources in changing people’s minds through mass media and especially the internet. Because of its status and low threshold to participation, Wikipedia is naturally a prime target.

Although Wikipedia has developed a good system for thwarting lone vandals, it has little defense against committed actors who have the time and foresight to become accepted members of the community. It stands to reason that the more powerful an entity, and the more they stand to gain from public perception, the greater in general will be their willingness to commit resources to editing Wikipedia.

The value of controlling certain Wikipedia articles during wartime is obvious.

Or take Monsanto, a company not known for its hesitancy in the realm of public relations. Monsanto and its public-relations contractor were caught red-handed in 2002 using internet sockpuppets to discredit researchers who reached conclusions which threatened the company’s bottom line. (See “The Fake Persuaders” and other news reports on this event collected here.) A Monsanto speaker has admitted that the company has “an entire department” devoted to “debunking” unfavorable science. Documents from an ongoing lawsuit over glyphosate toxicity provide evidence of Monsanto’s “Let Nothing Go” strategy of responding to all criticism online. Readers of websites across the internet can attest to the company’s diligence in these matters.

Are we to believe that employees or agents of Monsanto do not edit Wikipedia? When Wikipedia, as if dogmatically, downplays the potential risks of genetically engineered food across dozens of pages; goes so far as to smear criticism by association with the pejorative article title GMO conspiracy theories; devotes whole articles to undermining the work of certain researchers much as occurred in 2002—are we to believe this is done without encouragement or assistance from the “Let Nothing Go” department?

At minimum, can we accept the premise of a "scientific consensus" on a topic about which free scientific inquiry has been so blatantly thwarted? with some viewpoints suppressed and other promoted, not because of their inherent truth, but because of their commercial value?

Over the years, many good editors have spotted the apparent systematic manipulation in this area, and drawn attention to it in various places. Yet the situation doesn’t change; in fact, it gets worse. It poisons the air and undermines the fundamental optimism and trust on which this project relies.

If Wikipedia does not find a way to systematically deal with strategic manipulation by big players it will slowly become a playground for propagandists, and critical thinkers will treat it like some information-age Pravda. Respectfully, groupuscule (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly that this is possibly the biggest issue affecting quality control, particularly on profiles of living people, corporations, politics, and controversial topics. It leads to a lot of "false industry" where many people are working hard to improve quality but it is being undone due to a vicious cycle of nuisance. I would split the offenders into two sub-groups:

1) Somewhat naive PR specialists (or similar role). They are not necessarily trying to be deceptive, but their job is to promote their client, and they see that there is no wikipedia entry for them, or it is very basic or outdated, and they want it to be fixed. They are not experienced wikipedia editors, they are here for the single purpose of improving things for their client (just as they will write and distribute press releases, manage social media, update web content, etc). Because there is currently no legitimate way for these people to request their client's page be updated, wikipedia is tempting fate that they will try to take matters into their own hands and write it themselves despite the conflict of interest. A potential solution therefore would be to have a service where people could pay a fee to have neutral unbiased content created by an inhouse team of professional editors at wikipedia. The editors themselves would not have any contact with the 'client', would not know who was paying for the content to be created, would maintain their neutrality and independence. The client would have absolutely no contact with or influence on the creation of the content. Arms length. This should reduce a lot of non-malicious PR and low level propoganda. If they are worried about others sabotaging their page they could also pay a subscription to ensure the page of interest is watched vigilently by editors and only neutral content is added. (I notice in the edits section someone had changed the subject's real name to "potato head," and while the sabotage was quickly undone by an editor, it may not be fair to ask volunteers to do this workload when the subject of the page would happily pay someone to do it. Wikipedia should take a look at the number of volunteer man hours spent on these pages - particularly controversial ones - and consider who should be footing that bill.)

2) Intentional, organised, deceptive propaganda. I have seen quite a lot of bias on controversial topics, but until you mentioned it here I simply (naively?) thought it was just individuals pushing their own bias rather than organised and intentional. I agree in the world we live in today Wikipedia needs to develop a good strategy that will counter this issue. Having a team of elite well trusted editors who can veto/ have final say when necessary might help. Locking or restricting editing rights on controversial topics, requiring all change requests to be discussed via the talk page, and only trusted neutral editors have permissions to implement the changes on those pages. Using computer algorithms to detect biases in user contributions, and anyone who works outside of the acceptable values may be blocked or have restricted permissions. I also mentioned above a system where newer users have restricted permissions compared to more proven editors, and this would minimise the damage done. Would need a way to flag people suspected of bias and have them assessed. That also has the potential to go the other way - false accusations as they try to discredit others. Ugh! Powertothepeople (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

---

Dear fellow Wikipedians,

unfortunately, it seems as though many entries on Wikipedia related to politics are subject to intense abuse by politically motivated authors. For instance, on this very site I edited the pages on Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump, Frauke Petry, Bashar al-Assad and others in order to make them more neutral and state important information; in the Putin article, I added a pretty sound argument for election fraud committed by him (two mathematicians had discovered that polling stations which reported results divisible by 5 had much more registered voters, which could only happen with an insanely low probability), to the Trump article I added that Trump's statements regarding crime by immigrants were plainly false (and I used good sources, namely the official U.S. criminal statistics, which are just the reports passed on by police), and the Petry article I edited recently, removing strange justifications of her statements regarding murdering immigrants crossing the border. Finally, from the Assad article I removed certain things that sounded like an advertisement for Assad, and made clear that the elections were not to be taken seriously. This all is not to mention several articles on Chinese history which were possibly written from the perspective of the Chinese government, where they used terms like "liberation" for the conquest of areas held by the Kuomintang, the rival party to the Communists.

Now in each of these cases, my edits were reverted eventually, even if, as in the Trump article, an administrative opinion was given which was clearly in my favour. My conclusion is: Supporters of certain very bad politicians attempt to whitewash them. And I seem not to have any way to stop them. Thus I would like to ask: Would it be possible to obtain any strong administratorial measures against the disturbers? Further, would anyone be willing to help me in keeping the articles in question neutral? Where can I find such people? --Mathmensch (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• Relevant to this is this article: Internet manipulation. Some countermeasures can be found under the respective section in that article. Furthermore I think that one of the best ways to cope with Internet trolls and manipulators is to strengthen the enforcement of WP:NOTDEM. I made a relevant suggestion here. Other things that would be useful are: more users, people putting more pages on their watchlist and checking them better, pages for fact-check requests, identifying pages that are likely to have people trying to manipulate them, improved objective discussion streamlining etc. And I think the thing that's needed most is boldness: simply correct pages that have been manipulated with and if people have a problem with that go to the talk page and if that doesn't help go up the chain and request dispute resolution and make very good arguments etc. The first thing we should do for every issue including this one is creating a space where we can crowdsource, discuss and collaborate on its mitigation and management -> a meta page. --Fixuture (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Show Article Quality Rating to ALL Users

I suspect this has been discussed before although I could not find such a discussion after searching in a few places using different keywords. At any rate, the recommendation is to display an article's quality rating (grade) to all visitors--currently we show the quality rating (grade) to logged in users only.

For example, I clicked on the Random article link on the left nav bar and arrived at this article: Luigi Cocilovo. Because I am logged in, I read at the top of the article, "A start-class article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". If I was not logged in, I would not see anything about the article's quality unless I looked at the article's Talk page (something most new users--and even many frequent visitors--do not know to do).

Displaying quality ratings (grades) to all visitors would serve several purposes:

1. For Stub, Start-class, and C-class articles, the notice would alert visitors to the relatively low quality of the article; and
2. Visitors will more readily recognize that:

• Wikipedia articles vary in quality;
• volunteer editors care about quality;
• we have high standards for A-class, Good, and Featured articles; and
• they can help!

What do you think?   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 06:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree. We need a more automated system though. There are no rules for B and C rankings, and there aren't enough GAs and FAs - which are based on the quality of the prose more than the "robustness of the information", which matters more to the overall question here.

An automated ranking system assessing "robustness of information" could produce a single algorithmic measure based on a variety of relevant data such as:

• number of edits
• number of watchers
• number and weight of talk page comments
• number of editors
• "experience level" of editors based on their tenure, edits, etc
• number of sources
• etc.

It would need time and investment to calibrate, but would be of great value to readers, and go a long way to strengthening Wikipedia's reputation. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Article ranking, with the exception of FA, is an arbitrary process. GA is not reliable because while there are some very strict reviewers who demand near-FA standards, there are others, particularly new users, who will pass almost anything. There are also those who run 'I'll pass yours if you'll pass mine' systems - generally younger users. The other 'rankings' are done by Wikiprojects on scales of quality and importance as viewed by that project. It's not unusual for one article to be ranked very differently by two or more concerned Wikiprojects. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Quite true, but also better than nothing. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. I would rather give readers some sense of an article's quality, along with the other goals I outlined above, than pretend that all articles are created equal.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 02:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure, but by 2030 we should have been able to develop a better, automated, ranking system. We already have the bare bones of information to rank a page with good information [6] and a page with uncertain information [7], but we'd still need significant overlays to automatically rank quality of editors and quality of sources. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I think I understand your point better. Perhaps we could agree on two related goals: 1) Show the quality rating for all articles to all visitors; 2) Establish as a high priority the development of an automated or semi-automated article rating process. Please feel free to fine tune the wording. I would like to see this as some sort of formal recommendation if that's part of this review and discussion process. (I'm new to this so I'm not sure how it all works).   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 01:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this. Oncenawhile (talk) 05:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I'm a new user and I didn't even know there was a rating system until you mentioned it and I went looking. I think this should be pretty prominent, and in particular, the highest quality should have a badge or icon "verified" or some such, which allows people to trust and cite it as a Verified Wikipedia page. (FA doesn't mean anything to the average person, but Verified or Pro or Gold etc would). Powertothepeople (talk) 05:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that our quality ratings should be much more easily visible to readers. The main reason we don't make them more visible that now is that the rating system is so haphazard and unreliable. The higher-level reviews really need an overhaul to be less high-pressure and easier to participate in. I'd support what Iridescent suggested at an FAC discussion back in March, which would streamline all the review processes into one and allow newbies to gradually become more comfortable doing assessments. Lowering the barrier for human reviewers would certainly be easier than developing a computer program to do their whole job! A. Parrot (talk) 04:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Inaccurate info

You claim anyone and everyone can use this as well provide information. My problem is that there is more inaccurate info than accurate on your site and how do you truly plan to fix this...

When I try to update this false info to accurate info I am harassed or my edits are uncorrected by someone who claims they are correct and I am not when infact its the other way around. I understand that alot of people claim this but in my experience by doing actual research you can find the truth. If research into the actual comics would be done I wouldn't have to correct this time and time again and people wouldn't be finding out later they purchased what they thought was something else for hundreds or even thousands of $$$ and it was wrong.

I actually tell people to not use your site as a ref because of this and wish I didn't have to but your info is inaccurate alot more than accurate, just unreliable...Argento Surfer is the guys name and he apparently reported me for editing while he kept harassing me. The guy is not as knowledgeable ad he thinks and just like everyone else make mistakes but just seems to not want to look into the facts. Instead he argues and deletes my edits.

Subjuct I am referring to is first appearance in comic books. Wolverines true first appearance is hulk 180...its not a cameo. Cgc list it as his 1st app. As well as overstreet price guide. They list hulk 181 as his 1st "full" app. Another one is gambits 1st appearance which is in Uncanny X-Men "Annual" #14 came out in july but its listed on here as Uncanny X-Men #266 which came out a month later in August. #266 is in fact his 2nd appearance but 1st Cover appearance. Hes fully in the annual. Ref. To by name, takes part in the story and has a fight scene.. makes no sense how its not listed as first appearance. There are many other issues but these two I have been try ing to fix for a while ans they keep getting unedited. Havenx23 (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The ANI report is here. Nothing came of it because User:Havenx23 took a break from editing. My "harassment" of him can be seen here. This is my first response to him since the ANI report. He is a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account whose contributions are limited entirely to the "true first appearance" of a single comic book character and the related discussions. In these discussions, he inevitably brings up how the article influences the purchasing of said comic book. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate Argento Surfer's informative reply. At the same time (and I suspect Argento Surfer would agree), this is a very idiosyncratic issue that does not contribute to the discussion. If I knew how to archive this I would, but alas I am ignorant on the matter. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable would archive this section?   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Nothing to show here . .... Rishabhakarshit yadav (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)