Over the last few weeks we were able to design and field an experimental survey intended to address the relationship between attribution signals and "trust" (i.e., perceptions of accuracy of overall information presented and Wikipedia information, specifically). The research report remains under construction and subject to internal review. The following summary has been provided to the Design team:

Presented the findings deck and final written report to Reader Experiences yesterday, concluding the project. The hypothesis motivating this project is being tracked separately on Asana.

Final written report has been drafted; findings slide deck has been mostly drafted; findings presentation to the Reader Experiences team scheduled for next week. Looks like we'll be wrapping up right around when we were aiming for (end of August), leaving some additional time in Q1 for design/product explorations based on the findings

We are quite close to the completion of a first draft of the written research report which summarizes findings from the interviews, take-home task, and close-out survey. Next week we will begin work on the presentation slide deck, and an initial readout for the requesting product team has been scheduled for September 4.

Data collection has fully concluded and we are firmly in the report-writing phase. The composition of the research team may shift slightly as one member is moved to a different project, but we remain on track to have a report by the end of the month.

We continue work on Phase 1/Stage 1 in which we are attempting to elaborate a use-case framework from data collected via open-ended responses provided by readers. We are also in the planning stage of Phase 2, anticipated to take the form of a diary study of Wikipedia readers. We remain on track.

At this point we have more-or-less concluded interviews, although 1-2 may yet occur next week. We have also collected take-home-task responses from interviewed participants, and are preparing to recruit ~20 additional participants to a 'take-home only' activity. We appear to still be on track to wrap up analysis by mid-August.

The most recent actions on this project are detailed at T399736—we have fielded an updated version of the Stage 1 QuickSurvey and will continue analyzing results for the next two weeks, in collaboration with stakeholders and the research team. We have also begun drafting the survey instruments to be used in Phase 2, the anticipated Diary Study. This will be hosted on Qualtrics and delivered to (a) Wikipedia engaged readers (sourced internally), and (b) Wikipedia infrequent or non-readers (sourced externally).

Work continues. We will deploy our first QuickSurvey on Monday. Work on this project is now being tracked as WE3.6.4 on Asana.

We've conducted two pilot interviews and have begun recruiting for the next round of interviews and take-home tasks. We aim to conduct interviews through the end of July/beginning of August. Participants will also be invited to participate in an optional take-home activity following each interview. The target for number of participants has changed—we have shifted emphasis to prioritize our interviews, and invite a proportion (possibly all) of interview participants to the takehome task. We will recruit on a rolling basis until the end of July. Although we were originally aiming for 20, the eventual number will likely be lower than that.

Work on this project continues, with initial steps being taken in the direction of initial data collection. Our early work has consisted of gathering diverse perspectives and planning for research activities that can effectively accommodate those perspectives. Details of our steps toward data collection can be seen in T398370, where our initial Quicksurvey effort is described. As detailed in the research brief for this project, we plan to progress through a series of survey-based research stages before shifting our efforts to support a diary study and interviews with participants. In our next update, we will provide a draft timeline of anticipated steps.

We continue to work with the requesting team to explore this topic. This week, we completed one (and one more has been scheduled) provisional, pilot interview in which we explored the theme of collection and curation of information with an engaged Wikipedia reader. When we reconvene, we will reflect on this experience and formalize our plan for continued data collection in support of this hypothesis.

update: We have had several meetings with the requesting team and are quickly moving into the preliminary research stage. Interested parties are encouraged to take a look at the research brief in which the plan and research questions are stated.

A more-or-less complete draft of the final report has been delivered to the Web team, and a larger readout has been scheduled for Monday: WMF-internal link to Simple Summaries report

Two interviews completed this week (including two no-shows on Friday); three currently scheduled for Monday/Tuesday of next week. If the 3 scheduled are actively completed, I hope to provide the Editing team with a lightweight report by EOD on Wednesday of next week. One very early observation is that both of the first two participants, when talking about neutrality, associated "emotion" with non-neutrality. That is, statements were described as non-neutral if they clearly expressed what the participants perceived as "emotion."

after consulting with the Editing team, we've decided to move forward with a short-term and lightweight series of user interviews around this feature, anticipated to be completed within the next 2 weeks. Recruitment and early interviews are expected to begin this week.

After ongoing consultation with Research team colleagues, this project has moved into the pilot testing phase. @JScherer-WMF has helpfully provided static mockups to be used as visual artifacts, and they are being shown to participants in a survey hosted on Qualtrics. Currently, participants entering the survey have an equal chance of being routed into the "good summary," "bad summary," and "control (no summary" conditions, after which they have an equal chance of seeing article pairs easyA+hardA, hardA+easyA, easyB+hardB, or hardB+easyB. There is a pre-test measuring trust in and knowledge of Wikipedia, AI usage, and selected demographic variables, and a post-test measuring opinions about AI+Wikipedia, followed by a repetition of the Wikipedia trust questions shown in the pre-test.

We have finalized the documentation of V2 Archetypes, which will be updated on Commons pending a minor adjustment.

In consultation with the Web team and Research team colleagues, we are approaching alignment on a structure for this research, as outlined in the research brief. Briefly, we are planning to use panel participants (sourced externally) to investigate what happens when people interact with good or bad summaries in more difficult or easier articles. Next steps will include aligning with the team on experimental materials, further consultation with Research colleagues, and setting up the instruments on Qualtrics as we move toward the pilot stage.

@HCoplin-WMF and @JTweed-WMF completed their interviews with notifications informants, and the Platform team working on implementation, using the insights gathered during the listening tour as guidance. Design Research participated in this project by helping to shape the structure of the structured interviews and by synthesizing the output of the interviews in the synthesis document. Thank you to all participants and supporters of this project for your collaboration.

The interviews were completed at the end of December, and analysis wrapped up this week, resulting in this findings deck: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1N9yLxLEzmrdUAa0CFRJeba5-9CfNh2ejAOEodkQfJAs/edit#slide=id.g25ba630002a_0_0 (WMF login required). It is anticipated that this work will be presented to the Growth team at some point in the context of a team meeting, but for now we can consider the research work more-or-less concluded.

FYI, the podcast episode was recently published:

updated task due date to allow time for interviews and analysis. We are still aiming for ~5 interviews with non-editing readers (English speaking). We are exploreing the possibility of using this opportunity to explore the moderated testing capabilities of the Userlytics platform (e.g., for 1-2 of the interviews), which we haven't yet tried. This effort is also expected to help us continue to gather information about how to improve our mobile testing capacity.

After connecting with @HCoplin-WMF , I'm plan to spend some of the next 1.5 weeks synthesizing findings from the ~7 already-completed interviews into a draft findings document that identifies categories and examples of notification-relevant pain points experienced by the consulted teams and individuals. We'll reconvene when everyone is back from the upcoming offsite in Barcelona

We received input from the Design team during the RDS+Design offsite and are in the process of applying it to the current draft cards. We're also making minor adjustments in a few places. We anticipate using December to invite asynchronous comment from stakeholders on WMF opportunity areas for these Archetypes, followed by a mid-to-late December working session for synchronous input. All-in-all, we appear to remain on schedule.

Draft Archetypes have been prepared, and we are anticipating further workshopping them at the upcoming RDS+Design offsite.

We have identified 5 Archetypes among our V2 respondents, as well s 4 WMF-internal Archetypes representing Wikimedia contributors. We are currently drafting the first set of deliverables related to these groups (the Archetype cards) and will be presenting them in draft form to colleagues at the upcoming Research+Design offsite for feedback on their structure and contents. Overall, we appear to still be on track to finish by the end of Q2, and we will likely have significant parts of the expected deliverables ready before the end of Q2.

@leila that's a good question! I wasn't given an indication of that, but I can share it here when it's shared with me. I expect there will be at least some video editing involved.

The podcast was successfully recorded on Wednesday, October 16, and the list of questions as communicated by the affiliate organizers was adhered to exactly as communicated. Special thanks to everyone who helped me prepare for this opportunity!

Data analysis is ongoing. We've been making groups of people from our external respondents and comparing them to the responses of internal folks who responded to a recent survey of contributors. We are currently on track for our internal project timeline.

Data analysis is ongoing. Short and potentially interesting updates include:

• French-speaking respondents scored higher on a series of T/F questions intended to measure knowledge of Wikipedia and its functions than ES or EN respondents.
• The generalist vs specialist distinction (on the basis of respondents' "most important to you" contribution form) remains meaningful in V2
• The Arabic survey is on-track

With @HCoplin-WMF we have decided to split this work into two streams, with the first being represented by the sub-task T377041 which describes the addition of an API module to the annual Developer Satisfaction Survey administered by the WMF Research team.

Met with Halley and also with Miriam and Caroline (Research team) to discuss possible additions to the 2025 Developer Satisfaction Survey. Conversations are ongoing. Theoretically, the addition of a few items to this survey would fulfill many of the information needs of WE5.2. We additionally plan to explore the idea of speaking directly with internal or external users who can shed more light on notifications, a separate focus of WE5.2. We plan to meet again this coming week to discuss this second workstream.

Progress:

• collected English responses (~1200)
• collected Spanish responses (1650)
• French collection underway (expecting ~500 by Monday)
• analysis of contributor motivations from 2024 Community Insights Survey underway

Progress:

• user-tested multiple iterations of the V2 survey
• tested mobile and desktop (no major modality issues noticed)
• ran pilot screener on Prolific (35/50 screened respondents qualified)
• made Prolific-specific version of V2 survey
• sent V2 survey to 35 qualifying Prolific respondents, let's see how it works

survey refining work is ongoing in collaboration with @TAndic . We hope to begin piloting multiple versions of the refined instrument next week, including on the Foundation's user testing platform Userlytics, which was a helpful component of V1 survey development.

Thank you for your support! And thank you also to the Product Design and Research teams for supporting this work so effectively and generously over the last few months :)

Revision work continues with @TAndic. At this point, we've worked our way through half of the V1 survey, flagging places for revision or updating, and we've sketched a tentative timeline for project steps. We aim to wrap up survey revisions within the next 1-2 weeks, then proceed to ordering translations, hosting everything on Qualtrics, and deploying to respondents by early/mid September, in anticipation of having findings in time to support the early stages of next year's APP.

The V1 Archetypes were presented at Wikimania and have been uploaded to Commons. Although evaluation work continues (paying attention to where and how the Archetypes are being used, and what unmet needs still exist), it will be considered part of the ongoing V2 Archetypes work. At this point, we can consider V1 Archetypes to be concluded.

Moving closer to the Wikimania presentation where the team hopes to gather feedback from interested community members next week. After Wikimania, we will be able to consider V1 officially "completed"

Reviewing results and materials from V1 with an eye to improving the way motivations are measured and grouped in V2

Officially welcomed @TAndic to the V2 research team. Began scoping discussions for data collection part of V2, will continue these regularly. Initial goals include (a) triangulating V1 Archetypes motivation patterns with patterns observed in recent contributors survey, (b) revising survey instrument on the basis of its performance in V1, and (c) planning for the populations we'll want to target in V2.

Finalizing V1 deliverable (final touches on value propositions and opportunities for WMF strategic planners); prepping for Wikimania presence and community feedback mechanism.

Continuing work on the V1 deliverable (picking the appropriate "packaging"), and also starting to receive questions from interested Archetype users that are helping us to frame them. A few teams have indicated they plan to use the Archetypes in upcoming programming, including at Wikimania, and have asked questions about (1) how we arrived at them, (2) where we should expect to see more or fewer Wikimedians, (3) which Archetypes might map to which community roles, and a few other areas. The Archetypes research team is motivated to support these instances of use and will incorporate this feedback both into the reporting of V1 and the planning for V2. We're also keeping an eye on all instances of Archetype use as part of our use evaluation component planned for V2.

We recently presented our V1 Archetypes to our assembled stakeholder group, and took the opportunity to gather feedback from them. Currently, we are working to incorporate this feedback into a deliverable document that we hope to circulate within the next week or two. At that point, V1 Archetypes can be considered concluded, although work on V2 will continue until the end of Q2 in December.

Had an informative meeting with @Mooeypoo yesterday to gather more information about ongoing research activities and anticipated needs regarding WE.5.2. I'm currently reviewing this information and will follow up shortly.

We're getting closer to circulating a preliminary version of V1 Archetypes. We have settled on 6 different Archetypes, differentiated at the highest level by different combinations of motivations (as reported in our survey). These motivation-differentiated Archetypes also differ on a number of other dimensions, including how much time their members spend volunteering per week, various aspects of their relationship with Wikipedia, their beliefs about technology and privacy, etc. We're trying to present Archetypes characterized by meaningful and useful (for the WMF) differences that have an empirical basis, and to link the Archetypes in various ways to things we already *think* we know about existing Wikimedia contributors.

Analysis on the survey dataset continues. We've found that the distinction of "generalists" vs "specialists", based on participants' selection of the form of contribution that is "most important to you", is meaningful in a lot of different ways. Generalists combine three of the most common contribution forms we heard about (899 respondents total), and specialists combine most of the smaller and more specific forms of contributions we heard about (549 respondents). Significant differences include:

• specialists spend more time per week contributing
• specialists have a stronger and more positive relationship with Wikipedia
• specialists are more strongly motivated in a couple of motivational dimensions
• specialists and generalists are motivated by similar groups of motivators, but the groupings have several important differences
• generalists experience "lack of interest" as a barrier at a much higher rate (18%) than specialists (3%)

Update: We have been working with our collected dataset for one week, and presented some very preliminary emerging findings to project stakeholders on May 29. The presentation deck can be found here (WMF credentials required). We will continue to work with these survey responses in triangulation with an ongoing qualitative consideration of previous WMF-sponsored research in this area throughout the month of June. Work on V2 archetypes is expected to continue into Q1.

Update: @Bethany was successful in negotiation a custom solution with our vendor Userlytics, and at this point we have collected our full dataset for V1. We anticipate that V2 work will continue into Q1, and we also anticipate that V2 will also have a need for a survey component, so we are trying to think ahead to how best to support this. Regardless, we're currently officially in the survey analysis phase of this work.

Thank you, yes that's correct. We (@Bethany and I) are in communication with both Prolific and our approval people at this point, it seems like some wheels are starting to turn.

I had the pleasure of working with Shriya on her Outreachy project investigating Multilingual Editors, and I am confident that she would do an excellent job on this project. She has a strong technical background, and importantly also displays a strong sense of motivation and work ethic. She's a strongly independent worker, but also displays a keen awareness of when to seek out additional perspectives and sources of input. I'm happy to endorse this proposal.

@KStoller-WMF no thanks for closing it!

Thank you all for the amazing interest in this project! As stated above, please simply leave a link to your microtask submissions in the form of a response to this task. You can add me via email (mraish@wikimedia.org) as a viewer/editor/commenter to your document if you'd like to keep the document itself private. Thank you again, and stay tuned for more communication!

@Maryann-Onyinye thanks for the help! I followed the steps you outlined above, including nominating an additional mentor (who might not have a phab account).

In T332805#8828785, @Whatamidoing-WMF wrote:

The year prefix contains relevant meaning that might be useful for future editors ("Oh, that temporary account was three years ago. There's no point in trying to contact them...").

Hi all, FYI that the Design Strategy team recently wrapped up initial usability testing of IP masking (desktop+mobile)—findings deck located here—and the * issue popped up in the user tests as well. A large proportion (up to half) of the 25 English-speaking testers interpreted the temp account *23-15.498 as representing their IP address (in part or in whole). For some testers, the * contributed to that interpretation by looking like it was being used to obscure part of their IP address.

Hi @alexhollender_WMF I am leaning toward no browser, mostly because it takes up more space. @Laura.sti is working on a pilot instrument with the mocks you provided, and it should be shared with the group soon.

@alexhollender_WMF @ovasileva I'm a fan of option 2, "[X} editors have contributed to this article". It refers to "editors" as a type of user and explains what editors do.

@alexhollender_WMF these look great to us. We're comfortable moving forward with this appearance of the tested features on the other articles. See below for one minor suggestion, but feel free to disregard the suggestion and proceed as you think best.

@BCornwall thanks again. I anticipate needing to SSH into stat machines in order to access Jupyter Lab and run spark queries. I'll update the task description accordingly.

Hi @BCornwall, sorry for the delay and thanks for the ping. Yes, I had intended to add an SSH key to my account to facilitate some analytics tasks. Sorry for the confusion, as I didn't know that I also had access granted via analytics-privatedata-users permissions.

@Vgutierrez thanks, I updated with a new SSH key. Let me know if this is adequate, and thank you

@Trizek-WMF sorry for the delay. As far as I can tell, the mass message campaign was not successful, and did not result in any survey responses (or responses via other avenues mentioned in the recruitment message).