Talk:Reading/Readers contributions

Clarification
Some of the options are just listed as provocation/recap of past attempts, not because you are seriously considering them, right? Nemo 12:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, well all of them are suggestions at the end of the day.  What specifically do you find provoking?  BTW, mentioning Wikigrok, doesn't mean that the team is actually reconsidering it; just listing an example of a micro-contributions games, otherwise it would sound vague, so listing a tangible example helps visualize the idea. Same applies to article rating.  This is a very very early level of planning, the team itself isn't considering any of the ideas before discussion --lets have some good faith :)  Thank you --Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 17:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I think it's not especially productive to discuss ideas which are already dead in the water, so it would be helpful if the team removed the clearly discarded items. Then I can debunk the rest if needed. ;-) Nemo 17:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * MZ_PSA_6.svg haha, okay, if you found a clear way to phrase or give a tangible idea of microcontributions, then go ahead, (if Wikigrok is the problem). Just remember that this Reading team is the very team that already killed this feature earlier by themselves, without even a community consultation :) --Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

All of this is a bad idea
This whole idea is wrong-headed. I hate that the WMF thinks it's a software company because it keeps giving us solutions looking for problems. The editor base (that writes the content that draws eyeballs) is made up of encyclopedists. They're self-selecting. The last thing I want is to co-opt mere readers into doing anything. You're really just opening the door to more vandalism. I suggest that had the WMF not treated its contributors with such contempt for the past ten years you'd be in a better position now. None of the suggestions listed on the project page are going to help the encyclopedia. It would be better if you replaced most of your tech sector workers with librarians, quite honestly. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 12:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Chris Troutman .  Thanks for your comment.  I really appreciate you engaging with us after what seems to be a long, painful history working with the WMF.  It sounds like there are two issues with this way of thinking, which I will try to separate.  One of them is the WMF's historical approach to the community, which I can do nothing about except to strive to partner better with contributors like yourself (and learn what specifically we should do better).   The other issue, which may, in your mind, stem from the same mindset as the above, is the issue of whether or not we want to give casual users a way to contribute outside the very serious world of encyclopedia writing.  For this, I would say
 * 1. It sounds like we didn't do a great job of explaining the problem. I'll take a stab here. The problems are
 * Primary problem: most people don't learn best by simply reading, so we are not optimizing the value of the content
 * Secondary problem: editors are stretched thin. There are loads of backlogs and missing information that attest to this.
 * Tertiary problem: we (the WMF) don't have a lot of experience creating great contributory mechanisms on mobile and we need to practice
 * Here are some outcomes we hope to achieve in order of priority.


 * readers interact and learn more as a result
 * This is the low bar - it’s straightforward and we just make sure we don't make life worse for editors. The problem here is that content is static and increasingly research shows that learning by doing or via multiple modals reaches more people.
 * readers interact and help with existing editor needs (or add new value)
 * This is what we're aiming for. That is why we're asking. The problem we know is that editors cannot get to a million bottlenecks and backlogs--what are some of yours?
 * readers interact and eventually segue into editors (this funnel is probably overhyped)
 * Probably a stage 'n' priority, but shouldn’t be focus now. The problem here is that current editors are stretched thin.
 * we develop skills in building simple contributory tools for mobile and evolve into building power-tools for our editors on mobile
 * This isn’t a focus, but could be a fallback value


 * 2. I would ask you, as a doubter, to provide the proof you would need to see in order to support this and then it is my job to try and come up with that proof or admit I don't have it. In other words, "In order to support such work, I would have to know that readers would not vandalize, would be happy to contribute and would alleviate some of our more mindless chores".  Something like that.  It might be that you simply believe no matter what readers do that it violates a principle you hold dearly (i.e. Wikipedia should never prompt anybody", in which case, please share that and why you hold it.  For instance, prompting readers to take a picture of something nearby them that doesn't have an image seems like a potential win (if we can figure out the moderation).  Is there a reason this sort of contribution wouldn't be welcome, or is it just a reasonable doubt that we can handle the moderation without creating more work for moderators?  One of the reasons we strated this conversation is to tease this out and see what, if anything we can do.


 * Lastly, I will say that my colleague is working on some wireframes that might flesh out what both the contributory mechanism and moderation will look like. This might help clarify.  I can ping you when they are up.  Thanks again! Jkatz (WMF) (talk) 01:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)