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.

@Easikingarmager and @cwylo thank you for working on this.

Thank you, @fkaelin . Then: (1) is done.

and before I close: Thanks to @Bethany for supporting us with getting the Overleaf subscription sorted out. It was a big help.

closing this task. If anyone else needs access, please re-open or let me know separately. thanks.

(put a tentative deadline and a priority for this task. feel free to update the deadline as well as the task description.)

@DDeSouza thank you for proposing this change.
@Isaac thank you for looking into it and sharing your input.

@DKumar-WMF I gave you access to Miriam's doc. I also checked the first slide you've worked on and left some comments. feel free to ping in Slack if you want to talk syncrhonously about it (I suspect that you have a lot of knowledge about the direction I'm nudging that first slide that you can already bring and we may need to talk through it. If you are focused for now and want to continue working on your own, that's fine, too. An offer.)

@Miriam thanks for the update. I had a quick look at the doc and it's in a very good direction.

I gave license for a standard access to overleaf to Diego, Eli, Isaac, Martin and Miriam (all should have invitations in the email addresses they use for Overleaf).

I'm going to resolve this task as I'm done wit my first pass review, left comments in the doc, and connected with Miriam about next steps:

• Miriam will come back to the feedback on February 5th and we will check in the week after. My expectation is that Miriam needs some time to act on the feedback after that point.
• She confirmed that the team is not blocked on the roadmap so this gap to come back to feedback and iterate will not negatively affect the team.
• Sucheta and Chris have more time in between to provide their feedback.

Ok, that's helpful. So for the purpose of preparing the state of research, the focus for that stage is: Why are there internet users who have (largely) remained as internet users only and have not become aware of WP or going to one of the other states in the diagram? (finding causal evidence for claims or offering strongly supported hypothesis).

In T402635#11544561, @Miriam wrote:

Hi Leila, thanks for this.
I have one question about the levers. My understanding is that key open question for this funnel is around "conversion". So instead of how do we move metric X (we have so many metrics for each of these audiences and so our recommendations might become too many and ineffective). I would target both our "confident" and "hypothesis" lever suggestions on:

• what levers do we know of that can convert audiences from funnel stage T-1 to stage T?
• what levers we can confidently say that won't convert audiences from stage T-1 to stage T? (= things not worth trying)

Is it too restrictive?

In T402635#11546666, @DKumar-WMF wrote:

Hi Leila - confirming I have seen this. Overall makes sense. A few questions...

• Is it correct that the "Internet users" part of the funnel means people who use the internet but have not heard of Wikipedia? Or is it those who have never visited Wikipedia?

@Miriam thanks a lot for working on a proposed research roadmap in support of the AI strategy for editors. I reviewed it and left some feedback in the document. We also have a quick coordination call scheduled for January 22 (between you and I) to discuss next steps.

@Miriam and @DKumar-WMF and @Easikingarmager: instead of the longer state of research document that we did last year, we're going to do something more targeted for FY27. I have put some more information about it in this task description.

closing this task as I'm closing the quarterly lane. adjust as needed. thanks for the work

I shared with Selena about this work. She would like to learn more. I think this is good opportunity to send a message to Kate, Marshall and Selena and give a birds-eye-view of the event: what and why. Please reach out to them (via Slack). You can mention that you're following up on an action item I asked you about and you're including Kate and Marshall for broader awareness.

(feel free to change the deadline: I put it a week after Wikimania 2026.)

Reviewing a draft proposal by Bethany sounds good to me. Thank you.

@DDeSouza Thank you very much for your timely support.

Thank you, @DDeSouza . Please publish.

@Miriam thank you very much for the work throughout the quarter and preparing the draft. I created T413081 to track the review work. If you need the feedback earlier than the deadline on the task, please adjust. thanks.

@DDeSouza thanks a lot. I reviewed it: there were a couple of things that didn't transfer correctly and I made a few adjustments in the text as well. All are labeled as comments or suggestions in our shared document. Please review, implement, double-check those particular changes, and publish. Thank you so much for your work.

The report is ready. Daniel is porting. Once he's done, I'll do one last check of all the pieces and will share with the team and announce (expecting it to be tomorrow).

@KinneretG I assigned this to myself as I have a few updates I'd like to propose to that page. I will work on it, ask Daniel to implement and when you're back you can always improve it as you see fit.

I'm going to decline this task based on the previous agreement. @Easikingarmager if you want to prioritize it, re-open and we can discuss as we're looking into next quarter's priorities.

@cwylo is this task already done or to be declined? if done, you can link to the place where others can learn about what you found and resolve. thanks.

Update on this task: Some of the material to inform FY27-AP were prepared in a 2-week sprint in December. We may want to pick this task up in January, however, it needs further conversation with Marzanne. Let's leave it here for now and I may decline it in January.

@Easikingarmager thank you for this update. Sure. Please book a time.

@KinneretG You are going to put the template for this Research Report together (Thank you!). Here are a few things I'll need from you in addition given that I'll be out for some days, please:

• Set the deadline for the full report to be stable on December 12. That will give us a few days to ask for porting and checks on the website.
• The above deadline means that the work in Q2 will not be completed before the report goes out. This is okay. We report as much as we have finished by December 12.
• Assign work to sections similar to Research Report No 12 (consult with history as needed). For Applied Science, please check with Miriam who you can assign tasks to (follow up on yesterday's meeting).
• The deadline for the first complete draft of the subsections is December 5. When you assign tasks to folks please make that deadline clear through the assignment. That will give me time to do follow-ups and for folks to iterate as needed.

Thanks.

No updates this week.

No updates this week.

Isaac and team, thanks for working on this task. I made a few changes in it. I note that Jan 30, 2026 is not a realistic deadline, however, I do not know at the moment what is a realistic one so I put it at a time in the future as a draft. Writing of a paper for the meta-method is something we will more seriously consider starting February 2026 and if we go about that, that will require updating the deadline to a point later in the future until the writing and submitting concludes.

A note about my recent updates on this task:

• Miriam and I made some good progress on this task during July-September 2025. One of the highlights of that work was working with a group product manager to learn about their vision for implementing the AI strategy and their draft timelines. The other was that by spending some time on this task, we learned what is not clear and should be made clearer about it moving forward. To that end, I made some changes in the task now after coordinating with Miriam.
• I put the focus of this task primarily on developing, maintaining and seeing the execution of a Research Roadmap related to the AI strategy for editors.
• I made it clear that the focus is not an Applied Science roadmap but that I ask Miriam to lean on other leaders in the team for helping her with developing the roadmap which will include all of the work of the research team on this front.
• Miriam and I now have bi-weekly check-ins about this work for me to support her where she may benefit from it.

I'm moving this task to Backlog because the scoping is not completed. It will most likely need to still be prioritized for this quarter but it does not make sense to keep it in the quarterly lane given that conversations on iterations on it are ongoing.

High level summary of work done between July-September 2025:

• Output 1: NPOV guidance for researchers: We have proceeded as planned. We received community feedback on the draft and have improved the guidance informed by the feedback. We have not published the Guidance in a venue with DOI, yet (likely arxiv, and soon).
• Output 2: Methodology and case studies about contentious topics and NPOV. We posted the methodology for Output 2 on meta:Research on September 22. We presented and facilitated conversations about the methodology in multiple venues (e.g., NPOV Working Group, Wikimania 2025, Research team meeting, ...).
• Supported the organization on emerging requests related to this topic.

@Easikingarmager Thanks for putting the diff draft together. I labeled yours as Draft 1, and created a Draft 2 tab with my proposed changes. I ported the majority of your content from Draft 1 but you will see some changes in the opening parts. I assume the publication will be for when you're back from AoIR 2025. Good luck with the conference and the panel. :)

@KinneretG: we did a few iterations on the doc together. Thanks for your work on the feedback. I did my final pass now and left my final batch of comments. None are blockers for you to proceed. Thank you: the program has a good structure and logic and brings many of the things that we care about and want to see in such a program together. I appreciate your work through multiple iterations to improve it.