Task force/Wikipedia Quality/Weekly Report 01

From Strategic Planning

Task Force Weekly Report: week of 2009-December 1

Task Force Name:

Report of Activities


The taskforce started by considering its extremely wide remit, and brainstorming. This led to a number of rich and detailed threads and good collaboration.

Major orientation issues

It ultimately also led to a significant question: is the "Quality" focus intended to be quality of content, or quality of the entire project? (The latter would include matters not directly related to content, such as ability of other demographic groups to contribute, etc.)

The question was passed to the Taskforce liaisons, who clarified it was primarily quality of content, but other areas could be covered if felt appropriate (although content should be the main point).

A further topic was whether a top down "brand based" approach was appropriate. In such an approach one asks "What is Wikipedia", and then everything else flows from that starting point. For example, is Wikipedia "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", or is it "The high quality encyclopedia written collaboratively by a community". The significance is highlighted when considering whether certain kinds of would-be editors have a place in Wikipedia. Key quote from this discussion (paraphrased): - "Whenever Wikipedia allows something to exist in itself or its public image, that is not Wikipedia, it dilutes and undermines itself (ie, its brand) in the public eye".


Following these clarifications, FT2 summarized all discussion threads to date. Every thread was given a full summary, and a single page of all Quality Taskforce discussions to date was compiled (link). Users interested in any discussion to date, should review that page, which contains and links to everything up to December 14 2009.

Some tentative themes, ideas to pursue, insights, and conclusions had already been reached and a number of interesting ideas covered in some detail. The major themes arising from the threads to date were seeded as new threads, each on a specific topic, summarizing in brief bullet form the discussion to date, for further dialog. A number of broad topics and "general explorations" were also opened as well.

Plans for next stage

In this way, the work to December 14 led to a range of specific threads, each examining one topic or area that had already come up and been seen as promising, significant or worth pursuing. Being on single topics each, it is hoped these will more easily reach some kind of finding, which will ultimately funnel through into this group's final recommendations.

Planned activities for next week

Please be specific and aggressive. It is okay to roll activities from week to week if necessary.

  • The taskforce aims to resume development and discussion after the major summarization and archiving that has taken place.
  • The taskforce aims to move from more general brainstorming to developing the major ideas that came up during the first stage, while remaining open to new ideas that arise as we consider them in detail.

Resources needed

To complete our work, this task force needs the following resources or assistance:

  • A heavy level of involvement by taskforce members, with some willingness to seek consensus and collaborative approaches to overcome any stalemates or deadlocks that might arise, if any.


This week, this task force wishes to recognize for their assistance the following users:

  • Bhneihouse for a wide range of insightful and important perspectives
  • Randomran and Yaroslav Blanter for joining in so effectively and helping add to the discussions.
  • The team as a whole, and its helpers.
  • The communities of Wikimedia and its projects.

Other comments

For all specific findings and recommendations from this period, which are too many and too rich to list individually, see the summary page at Task force/Wikipedia Quality/Summary of Archive 1.


Our notes or documentation can be found at:

(Most discussion was of a brainstorming and orienting kind, and as such largely based on experience of major issues from multiple perspectives. This was a productive and rich approach. The above link provides backlinks to any backing discussions and any resources or documents used.)

Submitted by: FT2 (Talk | email) 22:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)