Wikimedia blog

News from the Wikimedia Foundation and about the Wikimedia movement

Posts by Erik Moeller

Usability: Why Did We Move The Search Box?

On May 13th, we changed the default appearance of the English Wikipedia to use the new look developed as part of the Wikimedia Usability Initiative. On June 9th, we unveiled the new look in the remaining top 9 languages (by access volume). Other languages will follow in the coming weeks.

The key elements of the new design had been in public beta testing for many months, and hundreds of thousands of users had already adopted the new look. But, nothing compares to the real thing, and we tried to make the switch as painless as possible — by offering a quick way back to the old layout, by explaining our reasoning, observing and listening to comments carefully, fixing bugs and implementing changes quickly.

The single most frequently expressed concern about the changes we’ve made is the relocation of the search box from the left sidebar to the top right corner. This blog post will give an extended explanation of why we made the change, the other changes we made to the search, and what we’re planning to do next.

The old search box location

The default location of the search box in MediaWiki, the software used by Wikipedia, is below the “navigation” box in the top left corner. This was also the location in the English language Wikipedia, as well as many other language editions. Some language editions, including the German one, had customized the location of the search box, and moved it directly below the logo.

What do we know about search usability?

There are essentially three factors that influenced our decision to relocate the search box:

  • common user expectations regarding the placement of the search box on web pages, as determined by the preexisting body of usability research;
  • usability research regarding ideal search box width, and implications for the search box placement in our layout;
  • ability of our test subjects to locate and use the Wikipedia search box, as determined by Wikimedia usability tests in a research lab.

There are several scientific studies that have examined the ideal placement of common objects on web pages. One early study by Michael Bernard conducted in 2001 by surveying participants regarding the expected placement of web objects such as internal links, external links, and search found that both new and experienced web users “generally expected internal search engines to be located in the upper and bottom-center of a web page. A smaller number expected it to be located at the top right of the page.”

This study was followed up five years later by A. Dawn Shaikh and Keisi Lenz (”Where’s the Search? Re-examining User Expectations of Web Objects”) in a survey of 142 participants. The study found that expectations had changed significantly, especially regarding the placement of the site search engine. The figure below illustrates the areas where participants expected the search to be found:

Expected location of site search engine

As the authors speculate and as seems intuitively plausible, early expectations of the placement of the search box were likely driven by the fact that search was commonly associated only with search engines of the time like AltaVista, not with site-specific searches. As more and more sites developed internal search functions, those were increasingly placed in slightly less exclusive screen real estate than the top center, shifting users’ expectations to look for search features in the top right corner.

Another factor that may have influenced user expectations is the common placement of search engine features in the top right corner of the web browser window.

There are practical advantages of positioning the search in the top right. As summarized in this research paper, several usability studies have pointed out a key advantage of navigational elements being placed on the right: it gives immediate access to the browser scrollbar. This is particularly valuable when a) scrolling up and down a list of search results, b) scrolling up and down an article you’ve just called up for information.

Search box width, and placement implications

 

A separate body of research examines the question what width makes a search box user-friendly. A search box that is too narrow obscures the user’s query while typing, inhibiting their ability to complete their search quickly. Usability luminary Jakob Nielsen recommends an ideal width of 27 characters.

The old search box is approximately 20 characters wide, the new search box accommodates 24 characters. More importantly, due to the placement of the old search box in the sidebar of the layout, widening the search was impossible without either relocating it or widening the sidebar.

The search box placement in the top right allows us to maintain a fixed standard width from one page to the next, while giving us maximum flexibility as to what that width should be. To make it even easier for users, we are experimenting with an expandable search, which is currently deployed in our sandbox 3. When you click the box, it will expand significantly to the left.  We may or may not end up deploying this feature as we continue to look at ways to make search more accessible and user-friendly.

Our own research

In the course of the usability and user experience work since last year, we have so far completed a total of three usability studies, all of which are documented on the usability wiki:

These studies included both remote and San Francisco based participants. While the primary focus of our studies were obstacles people encountered when editing, finding search in the navigation was clearly one of them, and our test subjects tended to resort to common web search engines to navigate Wikipedia instead of using the site’s own search. With the new search box placement, users’ ability to find and use the site search was markedly improved.  One user intuitively used the search box in its new location and then consciously realized that it had been moved.  To see videos of the other subjects finding and using the search box with ease, please see here.

For those unfamiliar with usability testing, it’s important to note that small samples and agile, iterative tests are commonly understood to be an effective method for discovering most key user interface issues. Our sample sizes were actually larger than strictly necessary, and more diverse than typical due to our use of remote testing methods.

With that said, we didn’t test the English Wikipedia against other languages which had placed the search box directly below the logo, and we recognize that this alternative placement is already an improvement to match user expectations. However, based on the cited research above, as well as the design reasons for moving the search box to the top right, we still believe that the overall case for moving the search is compelling even for those languages, if slightly less so.

So .. why did you move the search box? I liked it where it was!

In sum, we moved the search box to a) match web practices and user expectations, b) make it possible to widen it consistent with common usability recommendations, c) in response to actual observed problems of test subjects when using the old search.

We also recognize that millions of Wikipedia users had adjusted to the old placement, and will now have to re-adjust to the new placement. However, Wikipedia’s global audience grows by tens of millions of users every year (it is currently at 375 million unique visitors/month world-wide), and we hope to grow it by hundreds of millions in this decade. That will require that we adapt to common user expectations, rather than expecting every new user to adapt to us.

This will unfortunately inconvenience those who have adapted to the old placement. Do we absolutely know that to be the correct decision? No, but the fact that existing users are temporarily inconvenienced by it is not at all indicative that it is not.

Other search changes we made

It’s worth noting that the search box placement isn’t the only thing we changed about the search function. Perhaps most notably, the old search had two buttons (”Go” and “Search” in English). If you asked even an experienced user what the difference between those buttons was, you would get wildly different answers, and bug 577 had been open since 2004 because of this.

To answer the mystery: the “Go” button attempts to find an article with the same title as the entered search term and, if it fails, runs a full-text search of all articles.  “Search” will always run the full-text search.  “Search” is necessary where you want to search for a word instead of displaying the article of that title (say, you want to search for instances of “George W. Bush” all across Wikipedia).

In the new design, the less common case (search all across Wikipedia for a phrase, regardless of exact match) can be accessed using the “containing …” option in the drop-down menu. We believe this is both a more discoverable implementation, and it reduces overall clutter and complexity of the search.

Measures and coming changes

We are monitoring overall search volume. In the first week since the deployment, we have observed neither a statistically significant increase nor a decrease in search volume, but it’s too early to draw conclusions. There are also confounding variables. As noted above, the search box has changed not just in placement, but also in appearance and behavior. Finally, search volume isn’t the only interesting metric: search convenience (how long does it take users to, on average, find the search) is another one.

We’ll try to get our hands on solid metrics, but we’ll also continue to look for ways to make search more user-friendly (such as the auto-expansion), fix bugs, and so forth. In continuing our efforts to improve the user experience of all our projects, both for new and experienced users,  we’ll try to share our thoughts with you frequently, and work with you to figure out the right answer. And, if you just can’t get used to the new search — you can always switch back to the old layout, which will continue to be there for you.

Warmly,

The User Experience Team

New Reports from November 2008 Survey Released

In November 2008, the Collaborative Creativity Group at UNU-Merit, in partnership with the Wikimedia Foundation, launched the most comprehensive survey of Wikipedia readers and contributors ever conducted. The survey was translated into 20 languages and received more than 170,000 responses. In April 2009, we shared preliminary results of the survey, and in August 2009, a member of the UNU-Merit team presented the survey at Wikimania (slides are available online).

Some key results from the survey have been widely reported, such as the finding that only about 13% of all Wikipedia contributors are female, a gender imbalance that poses a serious challenge to the Wikipedia project. The UNU-Merit group has now published four final reports:
The UNU-Merit team is planning to make a comprehensive final report report available very soon, and to release the full, anonymized raw data later this year.
Erik Moeller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Using Video to Recruit New Wikipedia Editors

How can we recruit even more people to make Wikipedia a richer, deeper learning resource? For one thing, by making it easier to contribute (see our previous announcement). But, we also have to make our readers aware that their help is welcome, and ease them into taking the first steps to improving or creating an article. So, we’re funding the development of a slate of outreach resources such as brochures and videos that help people to get started, some of which target specific audiences like teachers and students.

Our partners are 27 regional Wikimedia chapter organizations, and anyone else who wants to help. Here are two recent examples.

Wikimedia Italia has funded the production of a 7 minute introductory video, “La Wikiguida di Wikipedia”. You can watch it on YouTube (with subtitles) below, or view or download the video in Ogg Theora format. It’s now linked to on every page of the Italian Wikipedia. The video was produced by Christian Biasco, and more videos are planned to be produced later this year.

If you don’t speak Italian, you may be interested in Howcast’s lovely introduction to creating a Wikipedia article, embedded below:

Produced with guidance from Swedish Wikipedia volunteer Lennart Guldbrandsson, it’s a fun and comprehensive intro, and uses Howcast’s powerful “how-to player” to guide viewers through the instructions. Howcast San Francisco, by the way, now resides in the offices previously used by the Wikimedia Foundation, so perhaps they were inspired by forgotten wiki paraphernalia. ;-)

The Wikimedia Foundation didn’t plan or commission these videos, but we’re very happy and grateful that they were made – we believe instructional video resources will be essential as we scale our efforts to recruit new editors. A big thank you to Wikimedia Italia and Howcast for leading by example. Moving forward, we are seeking opportunities to assist and encourage our chapters and individual volunteers in creating these types of outreach resources.

Erik Moeller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Open Video Alliance Launches “Video on Wikipedia” Campaign

Today, our friends at the Open Video Alliance launched an important advocacy project (see their announcement), called “Let’s Get Video on Wikipedia“. The project aims to motivate more people to take and upload relevant educational video content to Wikimedia’s media repository, Wikimedia Commons.

Video can play an important role in an encyclopedia and in other learning resources. Whether it’s clips of animals, speeches, interviews, excerpts from important films, explanatory animations, footage of historical events, or even collaboratively created documentaries exploring complex topics — video can enrich our learning experience. There are about 4,500 video files in our media repository today, a tiny number. We don’t expect that Wikipedia will turn into “Wikitube” anytime soon, but we do hope that thousands more relevant educational videos will find their way into articles in our projects.

The Wikimedia Foundation also believes that two things need to change for video on the web: it needs to break out of the Flash container used for most video on the web so that developers can build smarter and richer applications, and it needs to be shared in a free format so that anyone can shoot and broadcast video without paying fees. That’s why we use an open video standard for all our videos. The “Let’s get video on Wikipedia how-to” provides simple instructions to convert video into a free and open format and upload it. And, of course, all video content on Wikimedia Commons can be re-used by anyone for any purpose: we’re open all the way.

The campaign is being co-organized by Mozilla Drumbeat, Wikimedia New York City, and the Participatory Culture Foundation, makers of the open source Miro video player and downloader.  It’s also a trial-by-fire for some of the new video technology we’ve been working on in partnership with Kaltura. In short, it’s a demonstration of the power of building alliances. If you’re a video maker or a web developer, we hope that you’ll join us in supporting open standards and free educational video content.

Wikipedia volunteer TheDJ provides some further under-the-hood information in his blog summary.

Erik Moeller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Extending our user experience effort

Our very positive revenue perspective (we have already exceeded our fundraising targets for the fiscal year, and received a very generous $2M grant from Google) allows us to do something we’ve hoped to be able to do: make our investment in user experience (see original press release) permanent.

It makes obvious sense for any major website to have a permanent team focused on user experience improvements in the broadest sense. This includes eliminating obvious barriers to entry, but beyond that, we want to improve the experience as a whole for both readers and editors.

We’re now referring to this work as “user experience” (UX) work, which includes usability.

Naoko Komura will be Head of UX Programs, while Trevor Parscal will be the lead front-end developer on the team. Congratulations to both of them. :-) Naoko is currently assessing the remaining contracts and will share further information as these decisions are finalized.

In the immediate future post-April, we’ll be concerned with tying up loose ends from the usability initiative, and finishing functionality that we had to put in the parking lot. We’ll work on a roadmap and staffing plan for 2010-11 and beyond as part of our business planning process.

Our long-term focus will be determined in significant part based on the recommendations from the strategic planning process; see especially the community health recommendations.

While we haven’t finalized priorities, the single biggest piece of work is likely going to be the transition to a rich-text editor as the default editing environment for all Wikimedia Foundation wikis, particularly Wikipedia. But, user experience to us also means assessing how people self-organize and communicate in Wikimedia projects, how they get stuff done, and how they read and navigate our projects. Even among the areas of work we’ve already identified, there’s enough to keep us busy for many years. :-)

Please note that the original usability initiative hasn’t concluded yet. The team is working on its final release, which will include some of the most-anticipated changes, including collapsing of templates to simplify the editing interface, and the production release of the new feature-set to all users. As always, we’ll continue to communicate progress through this blog and the tech blog, and feedback and participation is welcome at http://usability.wikimedia.org/.

Erik Moeller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Enriching Wikimedia Commons: A Virtuous Circle

Sharing in the sum of all human knowledge requires us to go to the sources. Beyond citations to books, journals, and websites, knowledge comes alive through images, video, and audio footage. We can travel to the beginnings of human history and admire the beauty of the Venus of Brassempouy carved from mammoth ivory 25,000 years ago. We can marvel at 2000-year-old mummy portraits that capture the dead in vivid colors. We can immerse ourselves in an Easter procession of the 19th century painted in incredible realism by Ilya Repin. We can listen to the earliest sound recording of a human voice, which could only successfully be played back two years ago for the first time.

Galleries, libraries, archives, and museums (a collective we refer to as “GLAM”) document, showcase, preserve and protect our cultural treasures. The Internet gives us the opportunity to share digital entry points to the fuller experience that cultural institutions can offer. With more than 340 million unique visitors every month, Wikipedia is the central entry point for research in the Internet-connected world.

The international Wikimedia volunteer movement is therefore naturally aligned with the public service mission of cultural institutions. Over the last year, we have seen an acceleration of partnerships to bring content online. This is also a result of the emergence of Wikimedia’s world-wide presence through chapter organizations founded by volunteers, which exist in 27 countries.

For the first time, we now have compelling data that shows the success of these partnerships, and the virtuous circle they can inspire. We also can use the same metrics to track the success of Wikimedia’s other content outreach initiatives.

Measuring success

Developing improved content usage metrics was one of the key priorities identified at the Multimedia Usability Meeting in Paris (see previous report). Thanks to the work done by Bryan Tong Minh, who attended the meeting, the usage of every media file in our media repository is now fully tracked across different Wikimedia projects and languages. Based on this, Magnus Manske, another volunteer and Paris attendee, developed two useful scripts that help us track the usage of entire collections of content:

  • Glamorous“, which enumerates where media from a collection are used (e.g. which Wikipedia languages);
  • Amalglamate“, which tracks comparative collection usage data over time (starting January 12).

Using these scripts, we can analyze the impact of our content partnerships in real-time. For example:

In December 2008, Wikimedia Germany developed a partnership with the German Federal Archives resulting in the donation of 80,000 images, most of which relate to German history. As required by Wikimedia policy, these images were donated under a free content license which allows anyone to re-use them, provided proper credit is given.

Of the 82,458 images uploaded, 18.3%, or 15,109 images, are in active use in Wikimedia’s projects (e.g. Wikipedia, Wikinews, Wikibooks).

 

The most frequently used [1] photograph from the collection is the photograph of Willy Brandt, German Chancellor from 1969 to 1974. It is used in 60 language editions of Wikipedia, with a total of 83 uses.

Effectively, this photograph of Willy Brandt becomes an iconic image that web users from around the world will see when researching the politician, in any of these languages: Aragonese, Arabic, Azeri, Belarusian, Bulgarian, Breton, Bosnian, Catalan, Chinese, Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Esperanto, Estonian, Fiji Hindi, Finnish, French, Galician, Georgian, German, Greek, Hebrew, Hungarian, Indonesian, Icelandic, Ido, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Kurdish, Latin (!), Lithuanian, Low Saxon, Lower Sorbian, Macedonian, Norwegian, Occitan, Persian, Polish, Portuguese, Quechua, Romanian, Russian, Serbian, Serbo-Croatian, Slovak, Swahili, Swedish, Tagalog, Tajik, Turkish, Ukrainian, Vietnamese, and Welsh. And it’s just one of more than 15,000 images from the collection that are already in active use, about a year after first being made available.

These tools do not yet show the number of pageviews of the articles in question, although that data is available. For example, the German Wikipedia article about Willy Brandt was viewed 38,449 times in December 2009. Considering the combined language usage of Wikipedia, the use of images in many articles creates a large aggregate impact.

Like all media files in Wikimedia Commons, the image is available under a free content license, the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License. This means that it is usable by third parties as well, provided that proper credit is given. Tracking third party usage is, of course, more difficult. The MediaWiki software powering Wikimedia projects has built-in support for Wikimedia Commons (called “InstantCommons“), meaning that any wiki, anywhere, can immediately use files uploaded to Wikimedia Commons if this feature is enabled. For example, you can view the Willy Brandt image on WikiEducator (not a Wikimedia project), with all the same metadata, even though it has never been uploaded there. In the future, we may be able to track image usage across third party MediaWiki installations as well.

The Virtuous Circle

Not only do these images enrich articles in many languages, they also make it easier for people in languages that don’t have an article to get started. And, importantly, they drive awareness of the cultural institutions that provided them — as each and every image carries a visible seal when clicked:

Note how even the seal itself has been translated into 23 languages already. The images carry the original metadata provided by the Bundesarchiv:

This links back to a copy hosted on the archive’s servers. Because the descriptions and other data in the records of the German Federal Archives sometimes contain errors, there’s a dedicated page that lets volunteers submit corrections. This page is regularly reviewed by the archive’s employees, and corrections are incorporated into its records.

The usage of the images therefore drives interest in the content, awareness of the institutions, improvements of the metadata — and hopefully incentivizes other institutions to follow. Since the German Federal Archives, several large content partnerships have been established:

  • The donation of 250,000 historic images by the German “Fotothek” (more info)
  • The donation of 39,000 images about Suriname and Indonesia by the Dutch Tropenmuseum (more info), with more to follow

Beyond partnering with cultural institutions, Wikimedia chapters have also taken a leadership role in documenting the world around us through picture competitions, expeditions, and workshops. The aforementioned metrics can be used to track which models produce content that ends up being widely used in Wikimedia’s projects. Examples include:

The usage of images from these and other initiatives will now be tracked over time. Of course, having such metrics is only the beginning, and WMF will invest in global program support capacity to ensure that we learn from, document, and incentivize best practices.

Managing growth

Altogether, Wikimedia Commons has achieved extraordinary growth over the past year. Launched in September 2004, it took two years for the multimedia repository to reach the milestone of one million files. We’re now at almost six million files, two million of which were added in the last 12 months.  More content partnerships, new video functionality, and improved usability (see earlier post) will further accelerate this growth.

Thanks to Wikimedia’s large network of supporters, we can keep up with this growth. It’s been a much closer call this time than we would like, as the chart below showing our recently shrinking media storage capacity illustrates (out of a total of 8 terabytes):

But yesterday, we put into service a new media storage server which more than triples our total storage capacity (it will be redundantly mirrored to a second server with the same capacity). This, too, is likely only the beginning. Wikimedia Commons is not comparable to websites like Flickr or Picasa: it does not aim to document vacations, parties, and precious life moments. It is a repository of educational media. But there’s a world full of riches waiting to still be brought closer to the minds of millions.

Erik Moeller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

[1] excluding the use of images for purposes of navigation and topical representation on a large number of articles

Contact a local Wikimedia chapter

Further reading:

Upcoming events:

  • On April 13, 2010, Wikimedia volunteers and Wikimedia Foundation representatives will participate in a one-day workshop as part of the “Museums and the Web 2010” conference (“Wikimedia@MW2010“) to further explore and promote the active engagement between the communities.
  • On January 31, 2010, Wikimedia UK will kick off Britain Loves Wikipedia, a month-long photo competition that invites the general public to take photos of cultural treasures in participating institutions, for the primary purpose of illustrating Wikipedia articles

Priyanka Dhanda joins Wikimedia tech team

I’m very pleased to welcome Priyanka Dhanda to the Wikimedia Foundation as Code Maintenance Engineer. Priyanka joins us from SourceForge Inc., where she worked since 2002 as a software developer and also was involved in operations, working on most pieces of the infrastructure, and integrating third party software with the SourceForge platform (including MediaWiki). Priyanka holds a Master’s Degree in Computer Science from the University of Toledo, Ohio, and a Bachelor of Technology in Computer Science and Engineering from the Pondicherry Engineering College in India.

She is starting today and will work in the San Francisco office.

Priyanka will be a key interface between software developers and the operations team, helping us to catch up with our code and bug review backlog, to mentor new developers, to push projects to completion, and to improve testing and automation.  Please don’t swamp her immediately with requests as she’ll need some time to get more deeply oriented in the MediaWiki codebase. :-) You’ll be seeing her in the IRC channels, on SVN, Code Review, BugZilla, wikitech-l, and so forth.

Please join me in welcoming Priyanka to the Wikimedia team! :-)

– Erik Moeller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Beyond Text: Report from the Multimedia Usability Meeting in Paris

What’s Wikimedia Commons?

Expanding our collective knowledge requires not just text, but contemporary and historical photographs, paintings, maps, figures, video footage, spoken text, animations — in short, multimedia. With more than 5.5 million freely usable media files, Wikimedia Commons is a vast repository of such content. It was founded in 2004 to be the central clearinghouse and library of multimedia for all of Wikimedia’s projects, and also serves the free content and education community as a whole.

Wikimedia volunteers act as photographers, illustrators, discoverers, reviewers, catalogers, researchers and engineers. Sometimes, in order to make more material available, they serve as liaisons with cultural institutions. Most recently, for example, the Tropenmuseum in the Netherlands made 35,000 historical photographs of Indonesia available (more about this partnership).

From November 6 to 8, a group of about thirty people met in Paris to discuss how to improve the processes and technologies for contributing multimedia to Wikimedia projects. It was the first meeting of its kind, sponsored and organized by one of Wikimedia’s chapter organizations, Wikimedia France, in partnership with the Wikimedia Foundation.

In July, the Wikimedia Foundation received a $300,000 grant from the Ford Foundation to make it easier to add multimedia to our projects (see previous blog post). The purpose of our meeting in Paris was to support the kick-off of this initiative, and to bring volunteers doing multimedia-focused work together with software developers. Beyond the scope of activities within the Ford grant, we hope to see a large number of volunteer projects flourish that will enrich the Wikimedia experience beyond text.

We used the three-day meeting to both plan specific projects and activities, and to actually develop working code. Among the outcomes:

  • Increased awareness of our shared activities through demonstrations and discussions (list of projects we reviewed).

  • Experimental roll-out of functionality to track usage of media from Wikimedia Commons across other Wikimedia projects; a first implementation of wiki-editable subtitles for videos, and smaller hacks and improvements.

  • Draft ideas and concepts for improving the user experience on Wikimedia Commons as a whole: upload, site experience, metadata, search, third party use of Commons content, education about the project mission.

  • A clearer articulation of the needs that are specific to working with cultural institutions (galleries, libraries, archives, and museums – “GLAM”): case studies and success stories (a first case study was developed at the meeting), metrics, mass uploading tools, support processes, etc.

Developers developing

Developers developing

Summaries and notes from the respective work groups are available. If you’re interested in participating in any of these efforts, feel free to add yourself to the relevant “movers” section.

Unlike Wikimania and other larger Wikimedia gatherings, this meeting was a rare opportunity to focus on one specific problem area, and the first international gathering of this type. This approach turned out to be highly productive, and we hope to be able to use it in other problem areas in the future.

Because it’s rare for such an international and diverse group to meet, some participants met prior to the multimedia meeting to support the Wikimedia-wide strategic planning process; notes from this pre-meeting can be found on the StrategyWiki.

We want to thank all the participants of the Multimedia Usability Meeting for attending, and hope to organize similar meetings focused on other challenges and opportunities in the future. The Wikimedia Foundation wishes to thank Wikimédia France for sponsoring and organizing the meeting. Furthermore, we are grateful to Wikimedia Nederlands, Wikimedia Deutschland, and Wikimedia Polska for additional travel sponsorships. Your donations to the Wikimedia Foundation and to Wikimedia chapters help us to support future meetings like this one.

Erik Möller, Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Delphine Ménard, Treasurer, Wikimédia France

Wikipedia’s Volunteer Story

What’s happening to Wikipedia’s volunteer community? Earlier this week, the Wall Street Journal reported that “Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia Ages”. The article is a comprehensive description of the challenges and opportunities facing the Wikipedia community. Among other things, it describes recent research findings regarding the number of Wikipedia editors. A quote from the article: “In the first three months of 2009, the English-language Wikipedia suffered a net loss of more than 49,000 editors, compared to a net loss of 4,900 during the same period a year earlier, according to Spanish researcher Felipe Ortega.”

Other news stories have further focused on this particular number, some going so far to predict Wikipedia’s imminent demise, others highlighting its strengths and resilience. It’s understandable that media will look for a compelling narrative. Our job is to arrive at a nuanced understanding of what’s going on. This blog post is therefore an attempt to dig deeper into the numbers and into what’s happening with Wikipedia’s volunteer community, and to describe our big picture strategy.

In a nutshell, here’s what we know:

  • The number of people reading Wikipedia continues to grow.  In October, we had 344 million unique visitors from around the world, according to comScore Media Metrix, up 6% from September.  Wikipedia is the fifth most popular web property in the world.
  • The number of articles in Wikipedia keeps growing.  There are about 14.4 million articles in Wikipedia, with thousands of new ones added every day.
  • The number of people writing Wikipedia peaked about two and a half years ago, declined slightly for a brief period, and has remained stable since then.  Every month, some people stop writing, and every month, they are replaced by new people.

The numbers quoted in the Wall Street Journal are the result of analysis by Spanish researcher Dr. Felipe Ortega. Dr. Ortega has conducted valuable research on a wide range of aspects of the projects hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation.  It is, however, important to understand the meaning of the cited numbers.  Dr. Ortega’s findings are described in his doctoral thesis “Wikipedia: A quantitative analysis.”

First, it’s important to note that Dr. Ortega’s study of editing patterns defines as an editor anyone who has made a single edit, however experimental. This results in a total count of three million editors across all languages.  In our own analytics, we choose to define editors as people who have made at least 5 edits. By our narrower definition, just under a million people can be counted as editors across all languages combined.  Both numbers include both active and inactive editors.  It’s not yet clear how the patterns observed in Dr. Ortega’s analysis could change if focused only on editors who have moved past initial experimentation.

Even more importantly, the findings reported by the Wall Street Journal are not a measure of the number of people participating in a given month. Rather, they come from the part of Dr. Ortega’s research that attempts to measure when individual Wikipedia volunteers start editing, and when they stop. Because it’s impossible to make a determination that a person has left and will never edit again, there are methodological challenges with determining the long term trend of joining and leaving: Dr. Ortega qualifies as the editor’s “log-off date” the last time they contributed. This is a snapshot in time and doesn’t predict whether the same person will make an edit in the future, nor does it reflect the actual number of active editors in that month.

Dr. Ortega supplements this research with data about the actual participation (number of changes, number of editors) in the different language editions of our projects. His findings regarding actual participation are generally consistent with our own, as well as those of other researchers such as Xerox PARC’s Augmented Social Cognition research group.

What do those numbers show?  Studying the number of actual participants in a given month shows that Wikipedia participation as a whole has declined slightly from its peak 2.5 years ago, and has remained stable since then. (See WikiStats data for all Wikipedia languages combined.) On the English Wikipedia, the peak number of active editors (5 edits per month) was 54,510 in March 2007. After a more significant decline by about 25%, it has been stable over the last year at a level of approximately 40,000. (See WikiStats data for the English Wikipedia.) Many other Wikipedia language editions saw a rise in the number of editors in the same time period. As a result the overall number of editors on all projects combined has been stable at a high level over recent years. We’re continuing to work with Dr. Ortega to specifically better understand the long-term trend in editor retention, and whether this trend may result in a decrease of the number of editors in the future.

Let’s move on to the bigger picture.

The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization, is to ensure that every single human being can share in the sum of all knowledge. Both the health and growth of our volunteer community are key to succeeding in that endeavor. This is why the Wikimedia Foundation works with researchers from around the world to understand what is happening in its projects, supports comprehensive analytics work, and is pursuing long term initiatives to recruit new editors and support the development of its communities:

  • Our usability initiative is making it easier to contribute to Wikipedia and its sister projects by improving the underlying open source technology. Removing barriers is key to recruiting new editors.
  • Our outreach initiative is developing a comprehensive set of training and outreach materials that will help us to recruit new volunteer editors.
  • Our strategic planning initiative is a unique community-driven process to identify how we can maximize our impact. One of its task forces is specifically studying community health.

Wikimedia chapter organizations around the world are supporting our technology work, our outreach initiatives, and strategic partnerships; their activities are documented in the archive of chapter reports.

The Wikimedia volunteer community is also engaged in important discussions and experiments. A community-initiated project in the English Wikipedia, for example, tried to assess the typical experience of new Wikipedia editors when trying to contribute useful content. This newbie treatment study is directly informing community discussions about community processes. Similar experiments and large strategic discussions are happening in other languages.

These discussions and projects are important. Wikimedia is a unique global volunteer movement to share what we know, to make and keep it available. We need your help and your participation in these initiatives – please follow the above links and get involved.

We want more people to join us, to edit Wikipedia to make it richer and better and more comprehensive. We don’t know what the “perfect” number of Wikipedia volunteers is, but we do know that we want to significantly increase it from where it is today.

In addition to direct volunteer participation, Wikimedia depends on public support. If you share our goal of bringing free knowledge to every person on the planet, please make a donation today.

Erik Moeller, Deputy Director
Erik Zachte, Data Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation

Google experiments with new ways to search Wikipedia

The good folks at Google Custom Search, in cooperation with experienced Wikipedian Mathias Schindler, have developed a “Google Custom Search skin” for Wikipedia that can be activated by following these instructions. In addition to using Google to search for Wikipedia articles, it makes it possible to search linked Wikipedia articles, as well as the content of linked external websites, using a simple tabbed interface. See the post at the Google Blog for more information.

This is a community initiative, not an official new feature developed by the Wikimedia Foundation, so we make no guarantees of any kind for its operation. It does show how much bottom-up innovation is possible thanks to Wikimedia’s open APIs and scripting interfaces. We’re very happy that Google has built this alternative new way to search Wikipedia. Please provide feedback below, or to the Google Custom Search team here.

Erik Moeller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation