Summary:Talk:Task force/Wikipedia Quality/Starting at the Beginning

Starting point

Bhneihouse felt a "big picture" and "framework" was important. The dialog looks (to her) like people talking about what they feel important, rather than commenting upon what works and doesn't work in the framework. It is unclear if questions are being answered, or even if the right questions are being asked. The key questions (in her view) are for example:

1. What is Wikipedia?
2. What does Wikipedia provide?
3. How does Wikipedia provide it?
4. What works/doesn't work about how Wikipedia provides it? (this is where most of what you all have been typing in would go.)
5. What needs to change in how it is provided? (here is where the conversation about policies goes)
6. How do we build buy-in to the changes, especially when people are used to doing it a certain way?
7. How do we communicate the Wikipedia "brand" through all of this?
8. What is the big picture for quality?
9. What does quality NOT touch?

She asked that a page is set up to outline a more complete quality framework based upon these kinds of questions, and commented that policy is an effective tool to get certain results, but policies cannot take the place of principles.

The document on branding is relevant to this thread (File:Branding flowchart full version.pdf).

General discussion

FT2 commented we are one of several groups, so we can probably afford a simpler structure, and take a number of areas for granted (what Wikimedia is, goals, audience, what quality of content is). We can then focus more directly on the aspects of [content] quality that will have maximum effect, how to enhance them (or reduce the problematic issues), and look at long term structural threats to quality such as "political" editors, or fixed (arbitrated) content.

MissionInn.Jim felt we need to get beyond threaded discussion, organize the information, and move on to a process of producing "real deliverables" and how we will approach quality improvement overall.

FT2 felt the dialog so far was producing firm deliverables and hard discussion. Bhneihouse felt we had ideas and fragments, but (as yet) no cohesive framework, and suggested starting with "a new beginning" to put these into some kind of orderly structure. MissionInn.Jim noted that the input was good , but felt:

"[W]e need to be more organized and methodical about how we approach this problem (i.e. the problem of how to improve quality). Discussion lists are good for discussion, but they do not provide a summarized and organized presentation of the material... threads are popping up arbitrarily based on whatever comes to mind of each Task Force member. It is unclear to me what our... priorities are, or should be, or why I should spend my time on one particular thread versus another"

FT2 felt that although threads might start on "whatever came to mind", a convergence was likely; "[T]he landscape itself is holographic. Wherever we explore, if we do it well, we'll probably come to the same (or similar) final conclusions". He felt that starting by exploring a variety of approaches and significant issues would in the end inform a more useful structure (based on reality and experience rather than theory or assumption).

Bhneihouse felt the discussions could be highly valuable in a thinktank, but to remember we were not just a thinktank; we were required to produce a few concrete and well selected recommendations by a fixed date. A framework could help ensure coherence.

MissionInn.Jim agreed this was his concern too: "Regardless of the specifics and what we call it, we need some kind of structured approach to make sure we are focusing on the right issues and doing the right research. Unless we do that, we will just continue discussing issues endlessly. The discussion and ideas presented so far really show a lot of creativity, but we need to harness it"

Bhneihouse felt taking anything for granted was unwise and advocated a "zero" starting point based on branding: "If I do not fully understand Wikipedia's brand in the same way as the rest of the team, then how can I understand or agree to what the structural threats to quality are? ... [I]f Wikipedia is trying to be a well vetted source of reliable, neutral information, then anyone that gets in the way of that doesnt belong in the community."

FT2 noted this led to a related ("on its head") question ( covered in another thread, link):

"How much quality should we be prepared to sacrifice, to allow what level of public editorship? Or,

What degree of cost to the community is "too much", ie, the point where we cannot seek more quality without undue harm in some other area?"