Page MenuHomePhabricator

[Request] [FY26-WE.4.1] Map out non-emergency help pathways for the Incident Reporting System
Closed, ResolvedPublic

Description

Please provide all the following information:

  • Context. Provide a short paragraph with some background context for your request, please include links to relevant material.

The Incident Reporting System project aims to improve how Wikimedia contributors access support when they experience harmful incidents. We have released an MVP on pt-wiki focused on emergency flows. In Q1 we would like to build a prototype for non-emergency support.

Current non-emergency help pathways vary widely across communities, often lacking clarity or consistency. We hypothesize that mapping these pathways across a representative sample of wikis will reveal common patterns and divergence points. These insights will help us design standardized, accessible support options while respecting community-specific needs.

  • Description.What is your request about?

We are asking the research team to investigate how different sized (small, medium, large) Wikimedia communities structure and surface pathways for users to report harmful incidents. This involves identifying the specific steps, roles, and entry points involved in these reporting processes across a sample of wikis. This includes documenting how users currently report harmful incidents, who responds, where information is located, and how visible/helpful these pathways are. The goal is to identify patterns that can inform standardized design approaches, while also surfacing where customization is necessary due to local practices or cultural norms.

  • Expected Deliverable. What is the ideal outcome or result of your request?

The ideal outcome includes:

  • Mapping out the current support routes on a representative sample of small, medium, and large wikis.
    • In-depth analysis of non-emergency flows for pt-wiki where an MVP has already been deployed
    • Analyze similarities and differences across wikis to identify common reporting structures and pain points.
  • Recommend which elements of the support systems can be standardized across wikis.
    • Highlight where unique community contexts necessitate bespoke or flexible solutions.
  • Practical design inputs that inform the next iteration of the Incident Reporting System's help flow design.
  • Estimated Effort. Please provide an estimate of the amount of work needed to complete this task, if known.

Not sure. We have some research already, we just need to fill in the gaps. Hopefully not more than 4–6 weeks. Scoping work itself may need extra time.

Note that this task needs to run parallel to design prototyping efforts, so the team will require and expect iterative updates from this project.

  • Priority Please indicate a priority of your task and a small description of what it would unlock for you. We ask you to leave this task as “needs triage” since your request will go through a Backlog refinement process where our team will prioritize the work.

This work is high priority as insights from this research will be necessary to help prototype the non-emergency support workflow, which is slated to be finished by end of Q1.

I need this task resolved in:

  • 1 month.
  • 3 months. (by the end of Q1)
  • 6 months.
  • Whenever you get to it :-)
  • Other. Do you have any other questions or comments ?

For use by WMF Research team; please leave everything below as it is:

  1. Does the request serve one of the existing Research team's audiences? If yes, choose the primary audience. (1 of 4)
  2. What is the type of work requested?
  3. What is the impact of responding to this request?
    • Support a technology or policy need of one or more WM projects
    • Advance the understanding of the WM projects.
    • Something else. If you choose this option, please explain briefly the impact below.

Details

Due Date
Sep 12 2025, 12:00 AM

Event Timeline

Madalina renamed this task from [Request] <Map out non-emergency help pathways for the Incident Reporting System> to [Request] Map out non-emergency help pathways for the Incident Reporting System.
leila renamed this task from [Request] Map out non-emergency help pathways for the Incident Reporting System to [Request] [FY26-WE.4.1] Map out non-emergency help pathways for the Incident Reporting System.Jun 5 2025, 10:08 PM
leila set Due Date to Jul 31 2025, 12:00 AM.

@DKumar-WMF Please review this task and consider for prioritization. This is high priority on WE.4's list of requests (per my conversation with Eric today) and if you determine that your team cannot support it given competing priorities, I'm happy to support you in delaying/deprioritizing something else. Just let me know.

Assigning to Claudia, to discuss with the team to confirm approach.

One callout I have is that the part of the request about "mapping out the current support routes on a representative sample of small, medium, and large wikis" is a task that I've seen product managers and designers take on on other teams here at WMF, and that might also make sense here. If I'm understanding it correctly, this part would not require primary research, but rather screenshotting and doing a breakdown of the steps of the existing online flows. Since there are a number of Design Research requests for the T&S space for Q1, this part might make sense for Claudia not to do so that she is able to do the other parts of this request, and the other T&S requests.

For the part about "in-depth analysis of non-emergency flows for pt-wiki where an MVP has already been deployed": let's make sure to unpack if you are looking for interviews of users or quantitative user behavior. (from Kate Z: if the latter then this might be also for Product Analytics)

Kate Z's overall comment about this project: "this looks like Design Research. Although if the pathways are instrumented, there could be quantitative analysis done about user funnels (but that would probably be a heavy lift)"

Updated task description after meeting with requesting team. I have some additional notes around scoping and selection of wikis here:

The qualities of wikis we are most interested in, for our research segments (in rough descending order of priority):

  • Admin capacity: How many admins, or how many people are actively involved in help/support of editors?
  • Policy formality: How well-defined are their policies? (e.g. has an anti-harassment policy, has a neutrality policy, etc.)
  • Emergency@ support: How frequently has this wiki required emergency@ support?
  • Cultural differences in how help or support requests are handled, for example, whether such requests are expected to be self-initiated and carried out publicly, or whether the expectation is that this should happen via off-wiki socialization, etc.

"Representative sample" is also tricky to pin down, especially as we know some of the largest wikis (e.g. English) are significant outliers in terms of their support structures or help flows. Next steps will likely be to talk to T&S to gather more info on how best to scope this project and select wikis for this research project.

Update: given the collaborative and iterative nature of this request, I believe it makes sense if both I and @KColeman-WMF jointly work on this research. I will take lead on wiki selection and identification of support structures, while she will be documenting these different support structures.

Update: research brief discussion meeting set up for next week.

Update: We've concluded our research brief alignment and will begin work in earnest, starting by creating an assessment framework for support structures as well as finalizing our chosen wikis for this study.

cwylo changed Due Date from Jul 31 2025, 12:00 AM to Sep 12 2025, 12:00 AM.Jul 9 2025, 9:30 PM

Update: We have finished our preliminary selection of wikis, and will begin by mapping support structures on English, Portuguese, Japanese and Turkish Wikipedias. Our selection process only looked at wikis that had more than 10 monthly active admins, on the assumption that these were the ones most likely to have developed bespoke non-emergency support systems. These four wikis were chosen because:

  • They cover a wide array of admin capacity (looking at number of admins, number of monthly active admins, and the ratio of monthly active admins to both monthly active editors, and total monthly edits)
  • They represent a range in overall size of wiki
  • Japanese Wikipedia has a particularly high number of anonymous users, and so are particularly interested to understand how their support structures might differ as a result

We are now finalizing our assessment framework and hope to pilot this framework on Portuguese Wikipedia first.

Update: We've finalized our assessment framework, which uses a form that we will fill out for each support structure we identify. We are now identifying support structures across Japanese, Turkish, English and Portuguese Wikipedia, largely using existing community portals as a starting point.

Update: We've run 7 support venues from ptwiki through our form, and are now working on Japanese and Turkish Wikipedia support venues.

DKumar-WMF triaged this task as Medium priority.Aug 7 2025, 1:55 PM

Update: We've catalogued 14 more support venues from Japanese and Turkish Wikipedia. At this point, I believe it might be more impactful to work through Vietnamese Wikipedia as both French and English Wikipedia support structures have had prior mapping exercises; I believe that getting a broad spread of wikis is likely more helpful for IRS design work, but I'll be confirming this with Katie in the upcoming week.

We've finished our cataloguing of support structures from Portuguese, Japanese, Turkish and Vietnamese Wikipedias. We are now synthesizing some insights to aid Katie in upcoming prototyping work for the IRS.

I've produced a short writeup for Katie's use, and am now working on a presentation deck for next Tues to share out to the team. On track to finish by listed due date.

Final presentation deck is available for internal use. Closing this ticket.