I don't believe Sandra is currently on phabricator, so I've reassigned the last to Debra for purposes of tracking and support. I've already helped connect Sandra to the various stakeholders relevant for this project and the brief and plan are well underway.

The current document v3 tab contains the current project proposals, as well as proposals for how to define high-impact, high-risk, and a statement about why this type of work, both of which were needed and can help the team align around the purpose and scope of such work, both through the current proposed projects and potential future work. (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yp8eh-sWkixyT0PQuldiOcTGbjikXw1AfnYZuFx0onQ/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.3pgh2n97mkjc) I will close this task and suggest any subsequent work be taken up under a new task request.

Update: Met with Sarai this week to discuss the qualitative research need in more depth. Beginning work on research brief and plan.

Update: Started work on research brief and plan. Meeting with Pau next Tuesday to go over some logistics and get input on coordination details.

I've moved this back into the in progress lane because yesterday Leila asked me to present the first proposed project in the doc, 'Wikipedia's role in the context of AI intermediation' on 20 May during the research leadership meeting. To prepare for that, I expect the following to be needed in terms of work ahead of that meeting: some refinements to this specific project proposal, including further refinement of main overarching key questions, consideration of what resources may be needed for the project, and a rough sketch of timeline. Following the meeting on the 20th if there's clear alignment about moving forward and resourcing it, the next steps would be a fully formed research brief and plan along with more refined timeline; this stage of work should involve some input from folks who may be working on the project.

Updates:

• shareout and report completed
• report uploaded to Commons and project Meta page updated accordingly
• closing task now that work is complete

Update: assigning the task to myself for now, but Sandra and I have set up a meeting for next week to get started with planning for this work.

In line with 27 Mar update, I moved this task into the backlog for the time being.

Thanks for sharing about the project today, @MRaishWMF. Given there are two streams of research work to support this task, I've gone ahead and created two subtasks so we can more easily assign, track, and give updates on progress and work. Please feel free to modify and edit further.

A brief update on timing of the A/B test mentioned in this task description (relevant for purposes of coordination): launch date may be as soon as next week for Simple English Wikipedia, with other wikis to follow once localization coordination is complete. In order to shorten the experiment run time, the decision was made to expand the number of pilot wikis.

Updates:

• Plan to send report on 17th April to stakeholders
• Shareout and discussion scheduled for 21st April during OKR daily catchup

Updates:

• All research sessions complete except for 2 pt wiki editors still pending
• Analysis and reporting is underway
• Aiming to share report with stakeholders on 17 April
• Additional shareout/discussion to follow once folks have time to review report

Hi @Pginer-WMF , I've written this task request based on our recent conversations. Please feel free to edit the task description directly with any additional details or context you think would be helpful (and, of course, with any corrections or clarifications), thanks

Update: We currently have a proposal and a set of potential projects for this work, which have been iterated on and are ready for further refinement pending alignment and approval. Leila and I spoke this week and, recognizing competing demands and her current bandwidth constraints, we aligned on pausing active work on this task for the next few weeks until there is capacity to re-engage, for which I will look for her to signal. In the meantime, the core direction and options are in place, and when we resume, we can quickly assess what is required to complete this task: it could make sense to capture any significant subsequent work in another task, or alternatively update this task with refined/new scope.

Updates:

• Sessions and recruitment continued in parallel this week
• More sessions, with reviewers and editors, have been scheduled for next week
• Recruitment of reviewers has generally been easier than for junior editors; thanks to @Bethany for support with junior editor recruitment
• Aiming to complete sessions by 3 April with a few sessions possibly continuing into the following week
• Beginning to work on short session summaries to share with stakeholders

Updates:

• Async discussions with Miriam, Martin, and Debra this week.
• Significant revisions to project #1 description and illustrative key questions in the proposal, based on feedback from Leila, Miriam, Martin, and Debra. Further feedback on the revised section is welcomed. The current project proposals are not intended to contain exhaustive lists of research questions or planning details, but highlight key, illustrative points and allow alignment on direction that we can then take into more detailed planning and scoping.
• Debra has asked about upcoming resourcing and budget needs for this area of work. @leila, if it's possible to accelerate a decision on whether to proceed with one of these projects, it could potentially help unlock required resourcing and budget. This is somewhat time-sensitive as we head into Q4 and Debra needs to submit a budget/resourcing update mid-March, I believe.
  • My recommendation would be to move forward with project #1. There's further scoping, improvements, and planning to do, all of which can happen after initial approval. While I also perceive interest in project #2 from folks in design and product, given that #1 is more foundational, I'd propose starting there. As currently scoped, project #1 would likely benefit from an interdisciplinary group — a good opportunity to involve multiple members of our team.
• Leila, there's also a question from the group about the rationale for pursuing more high-risk, high-impact work (I've tagged you in the doc comment where the specific question is). I've shared an answer based on my understanding, but it would be great to hear your perspective directly. This could help clear things up, and also help us move forward on a few open decisions around definitions. Thanks!

Updates:

• Wiki focus selection is complete: Turkish and Portuguese
• Recruitment is underway for both editors and reviewers from these wikis
• Continue to review ongoing prototype work
• Work on the discussion guide is also ongoing and will be ready for feedback from stakeholders early next week

Updates:

• Received some review and feedback from Debra, Miriam, and Martin, thank you all. I will review this feedback next week.
• Awaiting additional feedback and next steps from Leila, likely some more conversation is needed following our very brief discussion of the specific project proposals last week.

Updates:

• Incorporated stakeholder inputs on research brief which is now complete
• Wiki selection to be confirmed by the end of this week. We’re waiting for inputs from design for any impact of wiki selection on the prototype creation and timelines in which case we will select another wiki from our shortlist.
• Bethany and Uzoma are in the loop about recruitment and we will proceed with recruitment strategy based on wiki selection
• Screeners and recruitment messaging has been drafted, will be starting with recruitment next week

Update: This week Claudia and I presented at, and participated in, the 'Let's Connect Learning Clinic: Strengthening Local-Language Admin Communities'. There were approximately 50 sign-ups for this clinic.

Updates:

• Met with Maryana to get updated on what she'll be focused on, and discuss the 2 possible projects (and the topic of research involving minors also came up in the conversation)
• Discussed proposal and 2 possible projects with Debra
• Shared the most recent version of the proposal with Leila

Updates:

• Refined research brief with anticipated timelines, making adjustments to support the desired date by which product is requesting results. We have flagged a few dependencies, such as receiving design deliverables by the anticipated dates. We can accommodate changes, but delays in receiving these would potentially affect research delivery dates. Next week we will continue concurrent planning and prep work we can do while design is working in parallel.
• Motivated proposal for wiki selection/focus, and coordinated with Bethany and Uzoma around recruitment support.
• Created project Meta page to document and track work.

Updates:

• Met with Suman last week to discuss high-impact research areas and presented a few of our current ideas for feedback. Confirmed a meeting with Maryana next week to do the same. I continue to perceive some traction with our current direction focusing on the top of the funnel and a challenging space that spans audiences on- and off-wiki (hence the high-impact, high-risk characterization)
• I've significantly revised the proposal, which is now comprised of 3 main parts: (1) a proposal for definitions of 'high-impact' and 'high-risk', (2) basic context about the topic area of reading Wikipedia in the age of AI intermediation, and (3) 2 specific research opportunities in this space (which could be pursued independently or be strategically planned as a deliberate staged program of work). I've intentionally tried to challenge myself to avoid undue length and improve conciseness around the main thrust of the ideas in the proposal.
• On 18 Feb I have a meeting scheduled with Debra (sponsor for 'reader growth' area) to discuss in particular the 2 specific research opportunities that are presented in the proposal.
• @leila , I'd like to propose that we use the time we have scheduled on 18 Feb to review the proposal and receive any feedback you have. I believe we may be getting close to the outcome that was hoped to be achieved with this task.

Update: Research brief and plan are drafted and being reviewed. Jahnavi and I will tie up any planning loose ends at the beginning of next week to avoid any delays.

Update: We finished making revisions to the materials for the learning clinic, and the organizers are now in the process of translating them. Learning clinic remains scheduled for 25 Feb

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