I completed this task. I wrote a trip report that I shared internally and with the Wikimedia research community (email, report)

Update:
The document is with Debra and Miriam for iterating on it and arriving at a stable document that we can adopt at the Research level. I have delegated my decision making responsibility to Miriam. Once Debra and Miriam agree on the stable text and final checks are done by them, Miriam will adopt the framework for Research. The implementation of the framework then becomes the responsibility of individuals and teams in Research.

We have a bunch of these in the management group but we're not tracking them under one umbrella. Unless it's an annual plan focus, the umbrella won't be very helpful and I resolve as a result.

Finalized the remaining pieces and pinged Daniel to help with porting.

@YLiou_WMF thanks for putting this together and the couple of conversations we had and also for providing the info I needed. I did a pass over the todos and made some changes in suggestion mode. I also added the decision brief template on top of the executive summary page with roles and responsibilities. (I don't have a full picture for who you have gathered input from so please expand that section). I am now preparing my leave notes and will make sure Kate has all the info she needs form my perspective to be able to help with the decision once the doc is stable and Miriam agrees.
Thank you again for working on this. It's bringing a much needed clarity for what's ahead in terms of large-scale surveys.

@Bethany and @Dzahn: thank you.

@Bethany happy to help here. A couple of questions:

• Can you confirm that you have read https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/L3 and agree to its terms? (You may have already signed this form, but I don't have access to it and want to make sure you're aware of the details there.) Please pay special attention to the "Handling sensitive data" section.
• Why do you need Level 3 access compared to Level 2? If you will need to use Hadoop, please explain briefly why.

I'm very sure this task is concluded. ;) resolving.

(assigned to Debra as the updates have been coming from her. Feel free to re-assign.)

I'm declining this task as we decided not to update the existing program and instead use part of FY27 to develop new strategy paper(s) as needed.

Delegating this task to Miriam for August 1 to October 15, 2026. Thank you, Miriam.

I'm going to resolve this epic as work for FY26 is concluded.

I'm going to resolve this epic as work for FY26 is concluded.

resolving this task as last year of work is concluded. I will create a new task for the new FY's work.

Top level takeaways:

• Continue investing in the Wikimedia research community and remain inclusive about who belongs to this community. I hypothesize that there are multiple factors at play (and the anecdotal feedback is aligned with the hypotheses):
  • The continued work of investing in strengthening the Wikimedia research communities is important. Continuity allows people to find a place that they feel they belong and they can orient towards.
  • Keeping the doors wide open to welcome different people to the research community is important. It allows hard core researchers, representatives of aligned organizations, research fans, and those who blur between lines and change hats over time to comfortably navigate it. An example of this is a user with extended rights who have attended a couple of the past events and is now doing a master thesis, or university representatives in positions that are more open/infrastructure than research itself.
  • Emphasizing on the human connection and creating kind/fun/productive environments for the communities to spend time in is important. Everyone is eager to learn and offering a fun and welcoming environment helps people enjoy while learning and sharing their perspective and experiences.

July 21:
WikiWomen+ Summit: I offered a short presentation to the group (women are significantly underrepresented among Wikipedia readers (GRS 2025), women view fewer pageviews than men (2020 paper), similar information needs and motivations (2020 paper), risk: downstream effects (pipeline of contribution), opportunity: addressing the gender imbalance at the time that we're losing pageviews and frequent readers can help achieve the goals of this group and directly contribute to having more frequent readers on Wikipedia.

Update:
Debra and Miriam provided one round of feedback. I did an iteration and they're doing another pass. They will need some more time for this second pass but I'm not sure how much more time, yet. Once I have that info from them, I will update the task deadline. In the meantime, I assigned the task to the two of them as they're doing bulk of the work in this moment.

Declining this task as it's outside of the scope of Research and the Product Analytics team is working on prioritizing this task (in Asana).

@Isaac np. Currently if the work is published in a peer-reviewed venue, we capture it in the Publications page.

@Pablo added to the list (we're likely missing more. I will do a pass over the Research Report No 13 and 14 once the latter is finalized and ask for another batch of updates.)

@DDeSouza thanks for checking. No need to wait. You can proceed with these changes.

@DDeSouza Thanks for your help with implementing these changes. (a couple of them, I believe, you have captured through other requests but just in case I compiled them all in one place, to the best of my knowledge.)

Updated text:

Big thanks to ITS for moving research-wmf@lists.wikimedia.org old emails to research-team@wikimedia.org. Following that: I deleted research-wmf@lists.wikimedia.org list. I will submit requests for updating research.wikimedia.org to reflect the changes. To summarize:

1. we will use research-team@wikimedia.org for internal team email communications.
2. we will use research-contact@wikimedia.org and research@wikimedia.org to receive emails from those outside of the team/org.

@RGaines_WMF some clarifying questions:

1. Is the scope of inquiry Wikipedia only or all the Wikimedia projects?
2. If the latter, is Wikinews within scope for this request given the changes on the project?
3. Are there any other constraints that can help the team narrow the space of search: languages? countries? ...
4. I still cannot see the dropdown in the spreadsheet you have shared. Should we see risk types in drop-downs?

Thanks, Isaac, for those pieces of work and to Debra for expanding the report. I did a pass on it yesterday and did some work on it, however, it required more than what I could give it (section labels need update, foreword needs to have clarity on impact on a couple of projects, ...). I notified Daniel to start porting the sections where I removed [WIP]. the rest that I should work on remains for when I'm back on July 7. I will ping you Isaac on the doc for when you're back about one specific piece.

We have agreed and started implementing the roadmap. We will not publish it at this point because we have also made a decision to archive other whitepapers and develop a Research strategy in FY27. We will revisit this roadmap at that time.

Steps 1 and 3 are completed. Step 2 is pending as ITS is looking into the option to port old emails form research-wmf to research-team (Thanks to Amir Sarabadani for helping with the mbox export). If that ends up being too difficult, we will make it private and read-only and conclude step 2.

Diego has already prepared a draft for review. Thank you, Diego. This task will have multiple people contributing to it at different stages. I made the roles and responsibilities clear in the task description. We may not always change the assignment at the task level but what's in the description should make it clear who the next step of work is sitting with.

Thanks, Eli, for doing an initial planning for this task and your work on it so far. Thanks, Sandra, for the work on the task so far.

In the Research team we do not have capacity to support this request at this time as it is a request that will rely on resources on multiple teams' fronts. However, I have captured the request here because this is the type of request that recurs and it can act as a case for considering future data releases.

public documentation of how we organize Wiki Workshop is another request we have received. the specific request is:

One feedback we heard from outside the survey is about disclosure of the use of AI. sharing it here so we have it handy for when we meet and decide on priorities for improvement.

(private) Slide-deck shared. A few learnings from this year's iteration:

1. We tried to further tune and contain work on this front for this year by focusing on the draft Objectives, instead of the broader multigenerational pillars.
2. the challenge that we faced was that the draft Objectives were only available < 10 days before we needed to share material which meant that realistically it was not feasible to align on narratives in our group and make sense of past research based on the specific objectives over that period of time. As always, it was clear: communication of research work is research and tightening the thinking and narrative requires time for good results.
3. The limited time meant that there was not sufficient time to remove the element of "surprise" from the deck. We had to make calls about the deck 2-workdays and 1-workday prior to the actual presentation (with some of the other directors involved) which increased the risks significantly. We eventually made a joint decision to move it to unconference and then share the results with specific Objective owners (we did both). To be clear, nothing that we had in the deck was necessarily controversial but the messaging had to fit the rest of the plans for the week of the offsite and that meant more time was needed for more folks to grasp and adjust their thinking/planning based on the deck, which is time that was not available at that point.