Wikimedia Mobile engineering/imported/Mobile projects/strategy

Product strategy
The strategic objectives of the Foundation apply to mobile in the following priority:


 * Increase in mobile page views to 2 billion/mo by end of 2012, 1 billion readers by 2015
 * Strong growth in Global South readers and female contributors
 * Editor retention and new editor engagement

The aggressive growth in page views will consist of organic growth and audience expansion. Marketing efforts for audience expansion can be enhanced greatly by mobile carriers. Therefore, it makes sense to partner with mobile carriers in the Global South, where readership can be greatly expanded in large mobile populations. We achieve two strategic goals at once by increasing readership in the Global South.

To achieve these objectives, the following rough global breakdown is helpful:

Assumptions
Needless to say, these numbers are approximate and gross generalizations. The variations among individual countries can be large. For example, India is dominated by Nokia and Samsung feature phones, but smartphone growth is rapid, albeit among a small minority of the population (primarily young males). Whereas most of Africa is still dominated by feature phones and no-data feature phones. Both regions represent enormous populations in the Global South (roughly 1 billion and 700 million, respectively).

An important assumption when evaluating mobile populations is the difference between installed base and new phones. Most publicly available handset figures refer to new phone sales, because it is easier to track new shipments. So in many parts of the world, smartphone shipments can be 30% or more of all new phone sales. However, the percentage of new phones versus phones in use may vary considerably between countries. Put another way, the rate at which phones are replaced can vary tremendously.

As an example of the potential variation among countries, the Japanese mobile market has undergone large and rapid changes in recent years. Some regulatory measures like Mobile Number Portability and reduced handset subsidies by carriers have caused handset turnover to increase from a typical timeframe of six months, to two years! At the same time, iPhone popularity took several years to take hold and for many people the iPhone is a second phone. In addition, Android has been adopted en masse by Docomo and au (the largest and second-largest carriers) and currently most new phones are Android based. So over time, Android will become a dominant part of the installed base, but even after several years the percentage of phones in use that are Android may be less than a majority.

Conclusions
In consideration of the above, several conclusions can be reached:


 * Mobile readership in the Global South is overall of highest strategic importance


 * The goal of product strategy in the Global South is to enhance readership, simply because editing on feature phones is highly restricted


 * While smartphone readership is important in developed countries, strategically the editor-related strategic objectives are a priority

This results in two parallel development paths:

1) carrier-focused readership expansion in the Global South, and

2) smartphone-based editing- or engagement-related features

A final factor to consider is that there are many third-party apps for smartphones that do a good job of improving the reading experience of Wikipedia. This removes some of the urgency of implementing these features. Let's focus more on editor retention and new editor engagement, which are higher priority anyway.

Finally, there are five ways to provide Wikipedia to carriers, all of which can be zero-rated (no charge for data access):


 * Wikipedia Zero in browser
 * RSS feeds of Article of the Day or In the News
 * Android app
 * J2ME app for reading WIkipedia (could also be zero-rated)
 * USSD/SMS for search and basic reading

The first three will be developed internally and the last two will be developed with partners. More information about carrier services can be found here.

Usage and feature framework
New feature ideas can fall into several categories, which are loosely defined as:


 * Audience building, or enhancing and enriching the experience of our readers


 * Peripheral community building, or the first step toward engaging readers in early steps of participation


 * New editor conversion, or the pathways, techniques and tools that convert readers or people in the peripheral community into editors (this category includes two stages: First Editor and New Editor)


 * Active editing, or the myriad ways in which experienced editors develop articles, curate content, create or modify templates and projects, and define categories and policies

In terms of mobile use, there is a definite skew toward the first three categories above, with great potential for specialized tools to support the last category. The current development activities in the Foundation are very much focused on the third and fourth categories, and most likely mobile development will follow the initiatives in those areas. For example, certain ways of curating new pages or content could be extremely handy on mobile devices, but those techniques would follow from the development in those areas pertaining to the main site.

However, when it comes to the second category, there have only been exploratory motions on the main site in order to understand the dynamics of the readership audience and what forms of engagement could make sense. Mobile use is particularly suitable for this category, as there are significant mobile behaviors which can be leveraged to create a so-called funnel of readers becoming more involved, some of whom eventually become editors.

The suggestions below fall mostly into the second and third categories, and there is extensive work being done in the third and fourth categories that can be found elsewhere in the Wikimedia universe. For example, an excellent analysis of the activities involved in active editing can be found here:

User:Raindrift/Workflows

A collaborative framework
The Reader-to-Leader Framework at AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction

This is a scholarly study of a variety of social networking and collaboration systems, including Wikipedia. The general framework proposed defines the following stages of users:


 * Reader
 * Contributor
 * Collaborator
 * Leader

Can this be useful?

Editor to user ratios have been going down precipitously even when the number of editors is reasonably constant. To the degree that the Foundation's mission is to empower content development first and to disseminate it second, this is a major problem. In this sense, any engagement with editing and contribution from mobile would provide an important step forward for the foundation toward fulfilling its mission, even if these users did not always (or even often) become much more involved in contributing to the site.

The Contributory Funnel
A useful metaphor for addressing the decline in Wikipedia editors is the conversion funnel. Since the goal is to convert more readers to editors, and to engage users to become productive contributors, the funnel in this case is focused on contributions.

Here is an early draft:



Mobile as a driver of contributions
As evident in the diagram above, mobile is a growing part of Wikipedia readership. There are several reasons to think of mobile as a key channel for increasing contributions:


 * mobile usage is closely aligned with short forms of messaging, and there are various tasks that can leverage this usage pattern


 * mobile is essentially a new frontier for Wikipedia and can innovate more freely


 * mobile apps are particularly flexible ways of "sandboxing" and testing new ideas


 * mobile is the most prevalent method of net access in many parts of the world


 * mobile delivery can target device types in specific ways

In terms of the types of tasks suitable for mobile, there is quite a range. The traditional Wikipedia world is divided into editors and non-editors. But in the emerging micro-focused world, there are many forms of indirect editing that still contribute to article quality and creation.

For example, the simple act of providing input about an article, in terms of its content, style or references, can help editors improve articles. But the concern from the perspective of established editors is that most such comments would be useless or even malicious. Therefore, some mechanisms for encouraging useful feedback and harvesting good feedback are required.

There are also many types of so-called editing that are really about review and curation. Some of these tasks are ideal for mobile usage patterns. For example, waiting in line at a bank, or sitting on a train, a user could flick through a list of revisions or new images and make simple indications of what to do next.

The Power User Distribution
In an ideal world, all contributions would operate in a balanced ecosystem where tasks are shared amongst a population in ways that reinforce momentum and the cycling of resources.

This concept must account for a general principle of all social systems, the power user distribution [ ]. It has been observed by Clay Shirky and others that in many, if not all social systems, a small minority of members is the most productive, exponentially so. The curve looks like this:



Since the distribution is so skewed to the left, the law of averages does not really apply. The majority of work is performed by a tiny minority of contributors, so if we were to look at the number of contributions per contributor, the number would be deceptively low. The vast majority perform a small number of tasks, whereas just a few contributors do much more than their share.

The top left of the curve is equivalent to the bottom point of the Contributory Funnel.

The power user distribution tells us a number of things. First, we can infer that the rate of growth of power users is a fraction of the rate of growth of overall contributors; therefore, the larger the population of contributors, the more likely that a few more of them will become power users.

Second, not all contributors are equal. It is not reasonable to expect that the contributors at a certain level of activity are equivalent to or overlapping with contributors at another level of activity. There are different contributor populations.

These two observations may seem contradictory, but in fact they can co-exist. Contributors can change which part of the curve they belong to over time, and this cannot be measured without the notion of the rate of contributions. The rate of contributions is simply the number of contributions over a small time period, such as one month. So contributors who make three contributions per month belong to a different part of the curve than contributors who make 50 contributions per month. Over time, their rates of contribution may change, so that they move from one part of the curve to another. However, it is important to recognize that their rates of contribution signify which part of the curve they belong to at a certain point in time.

One obvious implication of this line of thinking is that measuring contributions by cumulative number of edits per user is limited.

Of course, not all contributions are equal. Minor proofreading edits are certainly less difficult and valuable than researching and adding references, or composing whole sections of an article. This complex topic is addressed below, in Task taxonomy. In general, the more difficult and valuable contributions also tend to fall to the left of the curve, and a simple weighting of tasks by complexity would make complex tasks equivalent to some multiple of simple tasks.

The virtuous circle
Let's get back to the overall ecosystem. Given the power user distribution, different populations of contributors can co-exist and in fact cooperate, creating a virtuous circle. Small tasks can be handled by the majority of contributors, whereas more complex tasks can be handled by the power users. The virtuous circle is a convenient way to visualize a balanced, flowing ecosystem.

There are two useful concepts when considering the interplay between power users and the majority of contributors. The first is that power users are suitable candidates for defining and requesting tasks. The second is that some tasks can be farmed out to a broad population of contributors in a crowdsourcing fashion. Automation can assist both kinds of activities.

Tasks can be categorized along several dimensions, and the following is helpful for understanding the interplay between tasks themselves and contributors:
 * time available
 * interest areas, usually related to content
 * expertise or skills

Task taxonomy
Here is a general view of how tasks and task review can be organized:


 * Task
 * Size/Effort
 * Microtask - tasks that require less than an edit to complete
 * voting
 * rating
 * tagging
 * flagging
 * bookmarking
 * Macrotask - tasks that require at least one edit to complete
 * inline editing
 * full editing
 * Expertise
 * None - tasks that virtually anyone could perform, like fixing typos
 * Topic - tasks that require topic expertise (like finding an appropriate citation for an unsourced statement)
 * Scholarly - tasks that require a particularly high level of topic expertise
 * Local - tasks that require local knowledge (like determining if the coordinates of an article are accurate)
 * Community - tasks that require knowledge of community policies and guidelines (like determining if a topic is notable enough for inclusion)
 * Crowdsourceability
 * None - the task cannot be broken down and distributed into modular subtasks
 * Partial - part of the task can be broken down and distributed into modular subtasks
 * Complete - the entire task can be broken down and distributed into modular subtasks
 * Delivery
 * User - task queues delivered to individual users with an account
 * Reader - task queues generated to readers with no account
 * Article - task queues attached to invidual articles
 * Topic - task queues are attached to a topic and are delivered via categories or WikiProjects
 * Location - task queues are attached to locations and are delivered via location-aware features
 * Task repo - tasks queues generated in a central repository where they can be searched
 * Task review - same structure

Research
Here are some relevant links:

Internal

 * http://toolserver.org/~dartar/reg2/
 * https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Reader_to_first_edit
 * http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/07/05/what-moodbar-tells-us-about-new-registered-editors/
 * http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/06/25/converting-readers-into-editors-new-results-from-article-feedback-v5/

External

 * http://www.quora.com/Facebook-Growth-Traction/What-are-some-decisions-taken-by-the-Growth-team-at-Facebook-that-helped-Facebook-reach-500-million-users
 * http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8246463980976635143
 * http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~biglou/
 * Matt Salganik, http://www.allourideas.org/
 * http://www.wibidata.com/2012/06/06/who-deletes-wikipedia/
 * https://office.wikimedia.org/wiki/Editor_Engagement_Experiments/Wikimania_2012_ideas
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method
 * http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/
 * Amazon Mechanical Turk, https://www.mturk.com/mturk/welcome
 * The Extraordinaries, http://www.sparked.com/
 * WikiHow, http://www.wikihow.com/Special:CommunityDashboard
 * Jack Herrick, Wikimania talk
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_portal