Wikipedia:Contribution Team/Tasks/Planning

This area is intended for planning future tasks for the Wikipedia Contribution Team. If you would like to propose a task, please add a new section to the page.

The following templates can be used to mark the status of particular proposals:

Code	Result
{{approved}}	Approved
{{smallrejected}}	Rejected
{{not sure}}	Not sure

MiszaBot or other automated archiving support?

Would it be appropriate/helpful for Miszabot, or any of the other automatic archiving bots to be applied to any of the pages related to this project? Most likely target I think would be the SM Monitoring page. Drosenthal (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually it might be appropriate for this page if it can be configured to only archive discussions that are marked as discussion complete (approved, no consensus, failed, etc.) since it is conceivable that some projects might take a while in planning without constantly having discussion, and we wouldn't want them to get archived before they're resolved in some fashion. Drosenthal (talk) 18:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Are we really expecting there to be so much traffic here that automated archiving will be necessary? I would suspect we can do everything by hand, at least in the beginning. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 21:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I would love there to be that much traffic, also be nice for ensuring we don't miss anything. But it's not critical. ⇒DanRosenthal ^{Wikipedia Contribution Team} 17:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

New editor mentoring

• Find a couple of new editors, get them started, get them interested, show them wikiprojects, do a really thorough job of mentoring them.
  • In the process, turn those editors on to the "easy" portions of the fundraiser, such as the SM monitoring and broadcasting.
  • Would love it if the experienced editors could volunteer to match donations at whatever ability level they can. Even if it's as low as say, "I'll get 5 new editors to pledge to donate, and if I can do that I'll match $5 from my own money. Drosenthal (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Working with Wikiprojects

Concept: Organize a collaboration with wikiprojects. For instance, hypothetically take WP:MILHIST (this hasn't even been mentioned yet, so its all hypothetical). Maybe they could get an agreement within their project to improve say 5 articles to GA, and bring 5 new editors into the wikiproject, and make X number of edits -- really any metric we want.... this part is a non-financial collaboration. Some projects that have been identified as good candidates include MILHIST, Wrestling, Oregon, Chemistry, Video Games and Medicine. ⇒DanRosenthal ^{Wikipedia Contribution Team} 17:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Extending it further, as a financial collaboration, if the metric is met, then members of that project will agree to donate a certain amount on behalf of the wikiproject (can be split up amongst editors however they choose) ⇒DanRosenthal ^{Wikipedia Contribution Team} 17:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom?

Rejected

• This might be a ridiculous idea, but what if there was a similar challenge put forth to Arbcom? Either to solve everything on their plate within x time period, and arbs would donate, or consequently, a promise that if the editing community can keep behaved for X days and no new "real" arbcom cases are proposed and accepted, then the arbs would donate?

• • Possibly even more ridiculous idea: what about having Arbcom, for the duration of the fundraiser, ask (not demand or rule, merely ask) both the candidates for the Winter Arb election, as well as petitioners for an arbcom case, if they would donate? Even if they say no, it gets people thinking more about the fundraiser, and broadcasts a message that this fundraiser really permeates everything. Drosenthal (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
    • The ArbCom election idea will be seen as too much like a poll tax to go anywhere; the last thing we want is for this effort to become viewed as some sort of political play by the WMF. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 21:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• • • • Hence the "ridiculous" parts. I didn't really think it was possible at all, just throwing out the suggestion. Drosenthal (talk) 01:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Signpost coverage

Should we try to get something lined up for next week? I think we could potentially qualify to have a standalone story if we present this as an important new WMF initiative—particularly if we volunteer to write the thing ourselves—and that should bring in more visitors. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 06:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ya, Haeb added a complete fundraising update section to the November 8 issue Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost, we can definitely add a mention to join the contribute team in the next issue.Theo10011 (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. ⇒DanRosenthal ^{Wikipedia Contribution Team} 20:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Money bomb/Immediate feedback/Progress bar

Approved I think one thing that WMF fundraisers have always missed out on was the immediate feedback and excitement that comes from real time numbers and progress bars that are heading toward a goal. All the recent successful political money bomb efforts had this. I think it draws people in and gives them something exciting to work toward. It gives them something tangible that they helped make happen in a way that is immediately visible to them. Money into a black hole that goes into an account somewhere is one thing, making a number on a public website tick up and a little bar get instantly and visibly closer to a goal is another thing entirely. Gigs (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I like this idea. I'll forward to staff and see what kind of update support they can do for this -- we can put out the number in our daily meetings and update the image as new ones come out (potentially). ⇒DanRosenthal ^{Wikipedia Contribution Team} 22:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

We've got a designer building this now. ⇒DanRosenthal ^{Wikipedia Contribution Team} 17:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Policy discussion: Expectations and Norms?

See Wikipedia:Expectations_and_norms_of_the_Wikipedia_community which is under discussion right now. I think this would be a very helpful area for us to offer insight (if individuals are not doing that already) as the outcomes of this discussion will greatly affect the kinds and natures of contributions that the community will be receiving down the road. ⇒DanRosenthal ^{Wikipedia Contribution Team} 17:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Any objection to putting this on the open tasks list for a week or two? Worst case scenario, nobody wants to do it, or they think it's fine but don't leave any comments. ⇒DanRosenthal ^{Wikipedia Contribution Team} 22:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK production team?

After speaking with several experienced editors who are interested in doing DYKs, I'd like to float the idea around here of a small group of WP:CONTRIB members who can make an informal group (maybe like a sub-team) that works on making DYKs. They're something that is relatively easy to show a new editor, but still improves the quality and coverage of our articles; and helps new editors see "behind the scenes" about some of the structure in Wikipedia without overwhelming them too much. Functionally this wouldn't be any different than working on DYKs normally, except you could pool ideas together in a group and get some collaborative help on them, knocking them out that much faster. ⇒DanRosenthal ^{Wikipedia Contribution Team} 17:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Given the current fracas revolving around DYK, I think now would not be the best time to pursue this. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, although I am willing to help if a DYK group starts up in the future. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Kirill: Do you think maybe that we could actually help calm that down? i.e., by coming up with a group that consistently puts out good DYKs, and does so in a manner that can be easily taught to new editors, we'd be helping to avoid that situation in the future? ⇒DanRosenthal ^{Wikipedia Contribution Team} 17:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I don't consider it worthwhile from a risk/return standpoint. If we're successful, then we'll have helped create some good DYKs, whose real value is the topic of ongoing discussion, and which other editors are already doing. If we're unsuccessful, we'll have dragged an otherwise uncontroversial WMF initiative into the middle of a bitter wiki-political dispute, likely creating a backlash from anti-DYK editors and hampering our efforts in other areas. I just don't see a justification for going down this path when there are considerably less controversial areas where content contributions could be made and/or encouraged. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 04:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Working on article creation backlog?

In order to really kick off the article contributions side of this project, I suggest we take a look at working on the backlog here: Wikipedia:Articles_requested_for_more_than_a_year. It's currently something under 100 pages, I think if we worked at it we could at least create stubs on a lot of these. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like an interesting approach, and probably an area where we could help. Having said that, I wouldn't necessarily expect a lot of rapid progress; in most cases, these requests haven't been filled because there are no easily available sources, and we'll have to deal with the same problem. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 21:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

So I met with Philippe a bit about this earlier. I think we're on the right track with backlogs, but maybe this isn't the best particular backlog to do. Looking through Category:Wikipedia backlog, we identified a few that could be easy to knock out for new editors that haven't got a lot of experience (the idea is that in addition to working on some ourselves, we would also assist new editors to do the same). Examples: Category:Images_lacking_a_description, Category:Articles_with_dead_external_links, Category:Articles_that_need_to_be_wikified, etc. On the office side, we're able to throw some prizes at this for successfully hitting some sort of milestone. ⇒DanRosenthal ^{Wikipedia Contribution Team} 19:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Some of those are fairly esoteric—I certainly wouldn't throw anything involving image descriptions at new editors, for example, as they're likely to get caught up in NFCC issues—but if we're talking about backlogs in general, how about unreferenced BLPs? That's something of a hot-button issue, and doesn't necessarily require any real skills beyond being able to find sources for small articles. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 19:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You think BLP's are easier than image descriptions? The editors wouldn't need to know about NFCC issues -- they could just pop in to the image, see that it has no description, and describe it (it's a bear, it's a dog, whatever). ⇒DanRosenthal ^{Wikipedia Contribution Team} 22:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If the licensing winds up being questioned, though, they'll be the ones on the receiving end of angry bot messages.

Having said that, I'm not suggesting that image descriptions aren't doable; rather, I'm not sure that they are a particularly high priority. But I'm certainly not going to stand in anyone's way if they want to make that their focus. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, nothing prevents us from listing both, I suppose. I've got to work on a test for a bit, can you put them onto the open tasks please? ⇒DanRosenthal ^{Wikipedia Contribution Team} 00:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Smart Bible Search

Named “The fast Bible search engine that understands what you're thinking.”

The search engine allows you to search the entire Bible and view results in the New American Standard (NASB), Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB), King James Version (KJV), Young’s Literal Translation (YLT), American Standard Version (ASV) and the Darby Translation (DARBY). It also allows you to reference the Strong’s concordance that integrates both the HCSB and the KJV.

FEATURES Smart Bible Search is a very unique site. Results are pulled by relevance and searches need not match the scripture passage perfectly for the verse to pull up. Also when you start typing keywords, results are auto suggested in a box below the search field.

Although the search engine is not topical, it is heading in that direction. Some of the current topical searches that can be done are “The Trinity”, “Jesus is God”, “The Fall of Satan”, “The Rapture”, “Faith”, “Grace”, “Salvation”, “Divorce” and others.

HISTORY the Beta version of Smart Bible Search released on Friday June 24, 2011. Four days later on June 28th, the NASB was selected as the default translation for the search engine.

Pike Lambeth the Executive Vice President of The Lockman Foundation, and translators of the NASB, was quoted as saying that Smart Bible Search "is one of the most unique and most effective I have seen in a long time. It really does provide accurate and efficient search results and I like it a lot. The ability to click the additional resources links only when you want to see them is a great feature too."

On August 11, 2011 the HCSB was added as a translation, as well as the HCSB with the Strong’s Concordance references. On the same day the search engine was optimzed to return results twice as fast as the original version, all in a few seconds.

The web site can be viewed at: http://www.SmartBibleSearch.com/

Information from this page gathered from SmartBibleSearch.com and the face book page.

Uncategorized pages

We need massive help in this area. It's like trying to bail out a sinking freighter with a coffee cup. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 14:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Clean and Funny Comedy Booking Agency

Located in Shippensburg, PA, the Clean and Funny Comedy Booking Agency represents various headlining clean comedians in the industry, each having extensive experience, performing for both church and corporate events.

The agency represents the following clean comedians C.J. Harlow, Michelle Miller Harrington, Seth Knorr, Preacher Jovan Lawson, Brad Todd and Kristin Weber.

Old editors should also be informed

Old editors should also join this group and build it up to be stronger. Due to there experience they can help in developing it and making the new user love it when they see the benefits of it. The old editors have a lot to due in building this community