Updates:

• Received input from Pau and Amin via the kickoff doc
• Met with Amin, Nico, and Peter to get their thoughts on the async kickoff document
• Started working on the research brief and will aim to finish the draft by 11th Feb
• Joined discussions looking ahead at potential entry points that will be needed for the experiment

Update:

• Revisions in progress. We received some additional feedback on the materials, and Eli worked on some revisions to section 2 and added an interim audience reflection between the two main sections. I still need to tighten up the narrative around the section 2 materials.

Updates:

• I've continued meeting with various individuals about this topic, including Rita, Martin, Debra. Rita confirmed that something along the lines of 'participatory signals' could be a direction that the current attribution research may go. The idea of this research that I roughly outlined may need some further iteration, but could be one possible line of work to pursue. That said, Debra also shared some semi-adjacent ideas this week that I want to explore a bit further and see how they can advance thinking.
• [Flagging a need for something we should align around, @leila] In reviewing the current Research team work, I can see how it would be very helpful to align around a basic definition of 'high-impact' and 'high-risk'. For example, there are different types of both impact and risk, and we may want to narrow what we focus on. For example, it could be at this moment that we wish to focus on certain types of impact more than others; having better definitions could help us speak about different opportunities that may arise, and even provide criteria for evaluation. Moreover, with the assumption that nothing lacking impact should make it into our team's approved work, it would be helpful to be able to specify what we mean by 'high-impact'. I workshopped some ideas for definitions with Kate this week. I will work on this a bit more and ping you when it's ready to review, Leila.
• This week I'm attending the WE2 offsite, and hope to connect with Suman to discuss the 'audience growth' and 'ecosystem growth' areas included in the 'audiences beyond wiki' bucket that was introduced in an email from Selena on 29Jan re:updates to objectives, and which he'll own.

Update: We're working on the very final edits and mechanics of manuscript submission for CHI, paper titled, "Fueling Volunteer Growth: the case of Wikipedia Administrators". A big thanks to @diego for helping get the manuscript up onto arxiv.org earlier this week.

Updates:

• Jahnavi and I met this week to discuss the project, review the kickoff doc, and define next steps
• Eli shared the async kickoff doc with relevant stakeholders, and Jahnavi is arranging some individual check-ins to help gather input
• Once we receive input via the kickoff doc, Jahnavi will be unblocked to draft a research brief, including planned phases and dates
• To flag a potential blocker, the WE2 offsite is next week, which affects the availability of two direct stakeholders; we're doing our best to work around this to the extent possible

Update:

• Claudia and I met with clinic organizers this week to share a draft of our materials, and receive feedback
• Organizers will provide some additional feedback in the form of deck comments in the next few days
• Claudia and I will work on revisions based on feedback

Updates:

• Jahnavi and I are meeting on 27 Jan to discuss the project and next steps to get it started
• Due to scheduling difficulty, it is likely that the project kick off will have to happen somewhat asynchronously, potentially with 1-2 individual check-ins. Anticipating this, I've written a kick off document that Jahnavi and I can finalize next week and use to get input needed to scope and plan the project.

Update: I'm please to update that our CHI submission has been conditionally accepted for presentation and publication, pending a few final revisions and final submission. We're currently working on the mechanics of the final revisions and submission, and trying to get a version up to arxiv.

• We've begun working on materials for the clinic, but still have a ways to go in order to complete them.
• @cwylo and I have a meeting set up on Tues 27 Jan to review progress ahead of sharing and reviewing the materials with the event organizers.
• A meeting is confirmed with the organizers to review materials in Wed 28 Jan.

Update:

• In light of recent news around declining Wikipedia pageviews, we decided to see what it might mean to build out more details of a high-impact, high-risk idea under the topic of 'reading Wikipedia in the age of AI summaries and chatbots'
• I produced a proposal for one specific idea in this readership direction: Experiment with participation signals embedded in AI-intermediated experiences to turn Wikipedia from an invisible backend into a visible destination, increasing direct readership and downstream participation rather than trust alone.
• Met with Marshall to discuss the option of pursuing a project around 'participation signals' under readership research. I also shared this idea with Leila for feedback, and sent a description to Rita ahead of our meeting next week to get some basic input on reactions around feasibility.
• I've set up meetings with Rita, Martin, and Maryana to discuss some ideas, directions, and learn what they're thinking about in light of the topic of declining pageviews

Update:

• Met with Isaac to discuss various topic area options that had been identified; thanks for your thoughts and input, Isaac.
• Discussed with Leila and communicated that given overlapping work being led by Kadeem on the topic of readers-->editors, our options could be to (1) design rigorous qual work to complement their work, or (2) pursue one of the other topic areas identified, namely the topic of 'reading Wikipedia in the era of AI and chatbots' or 'trust and collaboration in the era of AI'. Awaiting feedback on this decision point, and a meeting has been arranged Monday to follow-up on the topic.
• Pending input from Leila on the overall direction, I will set up meetings with Marshall, Sonja, and Rita to get input and feedback on the anticipated direction we're headed
• One TBD is discussion of logistics around this work with Leila; I expect this can immediately follow the point at which we settle on a direction

Hi @Isaac , I was interested to learn more about your first update from 23 Dec. Did you run any basic analysis on the article creation questions and/or have you filtered and compiled raw data anywhere that would be easy to review? I'm curious what we could learn from this subset of questions that could inform ongoing work @Pginer-WMF is helping lead. Thanks!

Update:

• Shared progress and updates with research leadership group this week; in particular the topic we're considering as possibly the most relevant: 'How and why readers become editors', and thinking about how we can meaningful link together different lines of work that have traditionally been split, organized, and generally studied separately around the reader or editor experience.
• Learned of an "attribution research outline" that appears to be in planning stage elsewhere in the org. I've reviewed this, and the main area of overlap/relevance that I see is what's being termed in that planning, "Layer 2: engagement and attribution)". There are potentially opportunities for collaboration/data sharing/learning, but we'll need to learn more about the current status and expected progress of the work to understand how this can work.
• Most immediate next steps I believe are to connect with Kadeem, Marshall, and Rita. I've also added Isaac as a subscriber as I think I should connect with him given his involvement in work around contributorship.

As this task captures the planning work for the co-learning series, and that planning work is largely wrapped up (pending final input and changes from design researchers in early January), I will mark this task as resolved.

Updates:

• Received and integrated feedback from Leila on the proposal and plan
• Reviewed WMF guidance on use of AI tools as it relates to our plans for this series
• Continued to try to identify the best possible readings that we can select from, with emphasis on readings that relate or come out of UX and design research. These readings are organized around the currently ordered session topics of: (1) AI for ideation and early-stage exploration, (2) AI for research synthesis, (3) AI for writing and communication, (4) Ethical experimentation and responsible use (selected topics), (5) AI for knowledge discovery and secondary research, and (6) Best practices for our design research team (a final session focused on synthesis)
• Generated a running list of possible discussion questions and angles for each of the sessions
• Currently we have one session bookmarked for "Ethical experimentation and responsible use (selected topics)". We plan to get input from the DR team on Jan 12 to see if it makes the most sense to simply use this topic as a lens through which we approach each session (and replace the dedicated session with another topic of interest). Alternatively, we may leave as is and try to narrow "selected topics" based on input and interest from the DR team.
• Next steps are to share the plans with DRs on Jan 12, adjust plans based on their input, and begin the series in Q3

Update:

• Met with Leila this week to discuss the topics mentioned in my 20 Nov phab update
• We decided on one of these topics to begin exploring more deeply and begin to share and get feedback on: How and why readers become editors. Part of the rationale for this choice is to try to strategically bridge work that's being done in the reader and editor areas.
• I've begun a very light literature review on this topic. I will continue on this next week.
• Next week I will bring the topic proposal and some questions to the research leadership meeting for discussion and feedback

Updates:

• This week Debra and I discussed potential readings and some points of logistics such as which tools we can assume will be available for this.
• We received and discussed feedback from Leila on the proposal

Thanks for reviewing @leila

Update: We met the revise and resubmit deadline this week, and resubmitted the manuscript with substantial improvements to various sections based on input and feedback from reviewers. Thanks to all in the writing group for all their work on this resubmission! Until we receive a final decision, in order to respect the guidelines of the review process, we will continue to delay an upload to arxiv.

Updates:

• I received some input and feedback from Debra, thank you!
• I observe that one area we still need some refinement on is exact reading options for sessions and clarification of what tools we can expect to have available to us.
• At this point I believe the proposal is sufficiently clear and detailed enough to give feedback on. So, while we work on some of these final details, in parallel I will send the proposal over to Leila for review and feedback.

Update: I worked to further refine these topic areas and generate more strategic questions that fall within each. I scheduled a meeting with Leila next week to review and discuss these, and figure out next steps of what's needed.

Updates:

• After meeting with Leila, I tried to explore more divergently to identify other topic areas we should discuss and consider.
• I've completely revamped my initial notes doc and tried to organize around these topic areas, getting more precise with the problem and opportunity statements, generation of some strategic questions for the area, and then thinking about possible interventions.
• Currently topic areas I've been exploring include:
  • Next-generation readers and potential editors
  • Distributed editing pathways
  • How readers become editors
  • Sustaining the commons and financial foundations
  • Trust and collaboration in the AI era
• @leila, I think it would be good to meet again in a few weeks to discuss progress and receive feedback and next steps for further iteration, thanks

Weekly update:

• I've completed a draft of all the main work of this task listed above in the description.
• This week I also worked more on better defining the initial proposal for the sessions and proposed themes, detailing each a bit further and identifying related readings we may use.
• Currently the list of themes includes: AI for research synthesis, AI for ideation and early-stage exploration, AI for writing and communication, Ethical experimentation and responsible use (selected topics), AI for knowledge discovery and secondary research, and Best practices for our design research team (a final session focused on defining the best practices that have emerged from the co-learning series).
• I will slow my work on this front now to give @DKumar-WMF time to review and help further develop. Look forward to your ideas, and please boldly suggest edits and improvements, thanks.
• @leila, if we'd like to have a chance to have you review and then possibly make some revisions based on that feedback (and complete this feedback/revision cycle before the end of Q2), what is the latest date by which you'd need it for review? Thanks

Weekly update: ongoing incremental progress, but no major updates this week

Weekly update:

• This week we did a careful review of all the comments and revision requests from the CHI reviewers, itemizing a list of points that should be addressed
• We began working on all of these line-by-line; we're at least around 50% or more done with making initial suggestions for what we can revise and how we can address reviewer comments
• Next week the goal is to complete this process, and tackle various logistics around how we implement the changes in the current overleaf file structures in a way congruent with resubmission expectations

Weekly update: I've finished drafting an initial version of the proposal, including overview, context and motivation (rationale), objectives, expected outcomes, resource requirements, and proposed activities and structure. The last of these sections is in greatest need of additional input and development. I've shared the proposal with Debra for her input and help further developing it. Next steps will be to iterate and further define in collaboration with Debra, and then share with Leila for review and input.

Update: Approximately a week ago Leila and I had our first chance to discuss this in more detail. We focused on broad topics and intentionally delayed diving into logistical details for the moment. I've started a running 'strategic research questions and spaces' document for the moment to capture thinking and discussions. In coming weeks if there is value in doing so, I can post highlights and excerpts from it as part of updates.

Updates:

• Compilation errors for the arxiv submission have all been resolved (thanks to @Isaac for his help!)
• This week, we received a revise and resubmit (RoR) request from CHI reviewers, which is not a guarantee of acceptance but a good sign that reviewers perceive value in the paper (and we received lots of productive comments and feedback)
• In light of the RoR, and request not to post to social media (directly or indirectly), we're reconsidering whether it makes sense to post the paper to arxiv given we don't want to interfere with the peer review process
• We will update with a decision soon, but it may be that the best route may be to wait until early January to post to arxiv (at approximately which time final CHI submission decisions should be clear)

Weekly update: Eli has started drafting a proposal for this, which he'll then share with Debra who's helping to co-organize.

Weekly update:

• Share out of results and discussion with WMF stakeholders happened earlier this week; we've continued to field questions asynchronously (through 7 Nov)
• Project meta page has been updated to include results and recommendations
• Working on final project close out tasks

Last subtask has now been resolved.

Diff post available at: https://diff.wikimedia.org/2025/11/02/privacy-in-public-a-new-whitepaper-on-privacy-in-wikipedia-research/

As noted in a comment to subtask T406238, at this point the Diff post is sitting with the Diff editorial group. Once it's live, I'll provide the link in the description to that task, and we can close both that subtask and this parent task given it's the only remaining activity captured by the parent task.

Diff post has been submitted for review by Diff editorial board. So I don't forget about it, I'll leave this task open until it's officially public, at which point I'll share the link and close the task.

Weekly update: We're focused on revising and improving the final report ahead of next week's shareout with stakeholders and additional reporting that will follow.

We participated in a successful AoIR panel, during which the white paper was featured as a case study and communicated to a broader audience. In the next few days I will get the Diff post into the official queue now that revisions to it are complete.

updated due date to correspond with the date for a subtask that was added at one point (https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T406238)

The group has finished with revisions that went beyond the initial CHI submission and help improve the paper further. The paper text is ready to be submitted to arxiv, but in order to complete this submission, there will be some non-trivial work involved in final file organization and troubleshooting of current errors in overleaf. If anyone in the writing group would like to help out with this, I would appreciate it, feel free to message me here or privately. Given timeliness and urgency of some other projects and tasks in the coming 2 weeks, I won't be able to work on this immediately. I'll update the due date to reflect a more realistic expectation of when I can work on these final submission steps.

Updates:

• Diff post has been revised based on some feedback from Leila. Leila has a request out to WMF Movement Comms to confirm something about the audience of Diff. Once this input is received, I still plan to move over the WordPress (per https://diff.wikimedia.org/editorial-guidelines/). For now, I'm delaying this in order to avoid making revisions in multiple places.
• Revised white paper is available at OSF Preprints v2: https://osf.io/preprints/osf/uyxnf_v2. Note the title has been updated to 'Privacy in Public: Navigating Research, Perosnal Data, and Safety on Wikipedia'.
• I have some work remaining in preparation for the AoIR panel next week (panel: 'Aoir Ethics In Action: Guidelines, Regulations, And Practices Across Diverse Global Communities'). I will prioritize this work tomorrow.

We've now completed revisions based on input from Wikipedians and researchers that we received. Co-authors have reviewed and contributed to these revisions, and the WMF Legal team has reviewed selected passages as needed. We've also received confirmation from English Wikipedia ArbCom (thanks @Aoidh for reviewing and representing the group). We appreciate everyone who submitted feedback and comments during the review period, all of which have helped improve the white paper.

Weekly update:

• All Indonesian Wikipedia research sessions complete
• Final 3 English Wikipedia research sessions will be completed by EOD 10 Oct
• This week we wrote, revised, and shared an interim summary with direct stakeholders
• Began work on analysis, which will continue next week as main focus

Update:

• Co-authors have reviewed the revisions
• We're awaiting review of revisions and confirmation from English Wikipedia Arbcom

Updates:

• Diff post is drafted and revised. Once @leila has reviewed (please confirm once finished), I will move over to WordPress per directions at: https://diff.wikimedia.org/editorial-guidelines/
• I've worked on drafting a presentation for AoIR. It still needs some work, but I aim to finalize it next week ahead of the conference

Weekly update:

• 19 sessions complete, 3 scheduled, and still working on final recruitment for enwiki
• Interim summary document in progress to be shared mid-next week
• Provided feedback to Design on readers study plan (A planned Userlytics study that Design will run)