Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-08-21/WikiProject report

This week, we spent some time with the folks behind Today's Article for Improvement, commonly shortened to TAFI, which Coin945 notes is pronounced "taffy". The initiative began in July 2012 as an attempt to "use widespread collaborative editing to improve articles... over a short time frame." Two of the project's touted accomplishments are improving the articles for Sea and Entertainment from start-class to Good Article status. In addition to drawing veteran editor attention with a Community Portal widget and weekly announcements posted to subscribed talk pages, TAFI briefly appeared as a box on Wikipedia's main page welcoming new editors to contribute. Plans are ongoing to return TAFI to the main page. We interviewed AutomaticStrikeout, Coin945, NickPenguin, TheOriginalSoni, and TonyTheTiger.


 * Where did the idea for "Today's article for improvement" come from? How is it different from the collaborations of the week/fortnight/month held by individual WikiProjects?
 * AutomaticStrikeout: I can recall proposing the idea for the project that became TAFI at one of the village pumps. However, I can't remember specifically what prompted me to come up with the concept. I guess the major difference between TAFI and some of individual WikiProject collaborations is that TAFI seeks to improve articles covering many different topics, whereas an individual WikiProject has a much more defined scope and will focus on improving articles within its scope.


 * Coin945: There have always been aims to get a project like this going ahead, in some form or another. I know I have personally made at least two separate proposals for something along these lines to be put into place. I think TAFI is actually the conglomeration of two different ideas that have delightfully merged into one: the will to bring new editors to Wikipedia by editing bare articles on topics they know and love, and then an article drive that takes place every day. For me, when wanting to edit a random article, it takes forever just choosing an article from the many millions, and that is a huge time burden on me. So having 10 already-chosen articles right there, I think is a great asset. In short, the reason why this one succeeded while the other ones failed is merely due to hard work and persistence. We have an incredibly devoted team at TAFI who are not overly bureaucratic and who are open to any suggestions and improvements which I think is great (for example if the requirements for nominations became much more strict we would discourage users from taking part).


 * NickPenguin: The idea was originally posed here at the Village Pump: Proposals by User:AutomaticStrikeout. It started just as an idea to create a general collaboration WikiProject, but it started to gain more traction when it was proposed to put it on the Main Page and use it as a means to attract new editors. These two goals, while both possible, has led to an ideological tension in TAFI; is it a collaboration project first, or is it an editor recruitment project first?
 * The thing that makes this different from other collaboration projects is that it has a much wider scope. The consequence of this is that one weeks worth of articles can appeal to a wide audience of editors. The down side is that editors might not see an article they find interesting every week.


 * TheOriginalSoni: As Nick here said, one of the prime reasons TAFI is different is because of our scope. While most of the "Collaboration of the Day" programs in other WikiProjects are very focused on certain topics or a certain group of editors, TAFI has no such constraint. That allows us a much more wider scope and a larger group to focus on, both in terms of the articles and the editors in focus. We try and choose everyday articles which will be of interest to a large number of people and at the same time, we try to make sure that those articles are not so good that any new editor will not be able to help around to edit it. In the same way, we try and maximize our target audience, and we hope to get editors from all fields and interests, with a special focus on having newer editors.


 * Coin945: I always thought that TAFI should be about the articles on obvious topics (i.e. topics that if you were to theoretically create a new encyclopedia today, would probably be created within the week) that amazingly have very underdeveloped articles. It is to refute the notion passed around quite a bit these days that "all the good topics have already been written about".


 * How are articles selected for TAFI? Is there a reason for the order in which articles appear on the TAFI template? How is the template's image chosen?


 * Coin945: Anyone can nominate articles for TAFI, via the 'nominations' subpage. While the aim is to select start or stub-class articles on rather important topics that shockingly are still in a bad state, more obscure or developed articled articles are also welcomed. There is no hard and fast rule to what gets accepted or not. Essentially whatever gets 3 or more Supports, and little to no opposition, gets accepted. Which is a fairly good system considering we have 10 TAFI articles per week (we need a LOT of successful nominations). Also, Opposes tend to veto nominations, regardless of how many supports they have. At the moment, nominations have slowed down a tad, so we would encourage all Wikipedians to nominate and support the articles there. Once they have been selected, they are not discussed any further, and are moved into the Holding Area, and later put into the Schedule page when their TAFI week has been arranged. There is no secret meaning behind the order the articles are placed in the template. Sometimes (as we have 10 different categories and want to take one article from each), the articles are merely in the order of how the categories are listed in the Holding Area page. Haha maybe we should be sending subliminal messages, like the first letters of each spelling E D I T P L E A S E :D. As far as I'm aware, the template image is chosen by basically looking at the images in each of the 10 articles, and then choosing the most aesthetically pleasing of the bunch.


 * TheOriginalSoni: Our nominations page is where all the real action happens. Anyone can nominate any article and if it gets 3 supports within a reasonable amount of time, it gets placed in our Holding Area, which essentially is just a place for the articles to stay for some time. After that, a bot simply makes the schedule from the oldest of the articles, taking care to try and balance the various sections. One manual addition of the picture later, our articles are ready to be TAFI :)


 * Coin945: It wasn't always like that, mind you. The very first TAFI article (back when it stood for "today's article for improvement" - note the lack of plurality) was Culture. The discussion is located here. I remember being highly opposed to it due to it being way too developed in my opinion; my assumption was (informed by personal experience mind you) that it was much easier to add to an article than copyedit it. So for a day-only improvement drive, we would have much better results that by working on short articles than by rearranging/fixing/etc long articles. The philosophy regarding stub/start articles came into being soon after.


 * How successful has TAFI been at engaging editors and improving articles? Does TAFI's format result in some highlighted articles receiving greater prominence than others? Do some articles pose greater difficulties in attracting editors?


 * NickPenguin: There have been some strong successes, such as the improvement of Writer (before), Entertainment (before) and Sea (before). Not all of the weeks nominations attract a great deal of interest, but there are some winners. The tricky bit is finding articles that have both a wide appeal and ease of editing.


 * Coin945: Fun fact: NickPenguin nominated Writer, while I nominated the other two. NickPenguin has raised a very important point. TAFI is successful, yes, but we can't put that down to a community coming together to make Wikipedia great. It is because of a small collection of dedicated editors who find these articles and completely rewrite them. Often by themselves. For example, Entertainment was turned into a GA by essentially one extraordinary editor (User:Whiteghost.ink). Of course, bringing many new Wikipedians to the project comes with some issues, like different visions of what the article should be, or edit conflicts. Perhaps some guidelines should be put into place on how the articles are overseen/handled during their time at TAFI...


 * It always surprises me what articles get the most attention each week. General topics always tend to outweigh more niche ones. But even so, you can never tell what will see significant improvements by the week's end. It all comes down to what our TAFI followers personally are interested in. Which is why we specifically aim to have as wide a reach topic-wise as possible. I remember one article gaining significant attention on the Wikipedia Facebook page: Islamic Golden Age. Much of the discussion was essentially on the Islamaphobic topic of "this is a lie. Islam has never had a golden age", while the rest of it was reasoned analysis of the era, the debunking of myths, and the general denoobification of the ignorant public. It was glorious to read. So perhaps that is TAFI's greatest achievement so far.


 * TAFI briefly appeared on Wikipedia's main page. How was this accomplished? Why is TAFI no longer on the main page? Are there plans for TAFI to return?


 * Coin945: My vision for TAFI was always a banner across the top of the page proudly proclaiming: "___ is today's article for improvement. [enter short quip about it that engages viewer and encourages them to edit]". The problem is that the main page serves two different purposes in Wikipedians' minds. Which comes down to what Wikipedians' views on Wikipedia actually are. If you see it as a work in progress, then you want the main page to be a portal to all the ways you can help improve it. If you see it as a work that must have a facade of excellence and perfection, then you want to shower it with FA and other well written content. That is the issue with my original proposal. So we went with something a lot more subtle. Others will no doubt go into a lot more detail, but essentially there were issues with having both halves of the main page the same length, which meant On this Day or DYK had to alter the number of selections they have per week, and then we thought we could have a whole bar to ourselves alleviating that problem, and then it all got kinda confusing and the next thing I knew we were off the main page.


 * NickPenguin: It was put on the Main Page after months of communication with the rest of the community, through talk page messages, RFCs and other avenues. It was taken off the main page because the schedule was not updated in advance of the next week's cycle. That part of the weekly process has now been automated, but there was other underlying issues that has yet to be resolved. For starters, there has been endless and unresolved debate about the format and placement on the Main Page. Also, the outside participation was just not as great as expected, as roughly 50% of article improvement came from project members. It hasn't been determined if this is because of article choice, publicity, the format on the main page, or another factor. But it certainly didn't attract as many new editors as we had imagined it might.


 * Coin945: The fact that an essentially dead project was completely invigorated after the WMF started having TAFI-based posts is enough proof to me that the main problem was the dullness of the design. I remember saying in one of the discussions something along the lines: you can have the best product in the world, but if you market it incorrectly, it will fail miserably. Now in not sure how good our product is, but I can certainly vouch for it being marketed in the complete wrong way. Boring, impersonal, and miniscule. I always have Horrible Histories in the back of my head when thinking about TAFI marketing. How do you make something traditionally seen as dull into something exciting and fun..?


 * TheOriginalSoni: We've had several CENT-listed RFCs on the village pump to add TAFI to the main page. That was done in-order to try and attract our newer editors and convert them to active editing. After months of deliberations and painstakingly moving forward with it, we hit a major wall with the design. We had several ideas for adding the new section, but the admins and editors most involved with the Main Page said we could not try to add that because of issues with balancing the left and right columns of the page, which was apparently a major problem already. Because of that, we had to implement a relatively worse option without these issues, but which also failed to be noticeable or clear enough to make some real impact. Because of this lack of impact, and other (now resolved) automation issues, we were removed off the Main Page.


 * There are already plans in motion for returning us to the main page. Currently, Technical 13 and I have been working on a possible full-width layout which would supersede all the other concerns. Progress on this has been slow, and would require plenty of input and update from others. But it's a start, with with luck, we can try and get a layout which is agreeable to all, and get TAFI and the bar approved through an RFC soon enough.


 * TonyTheTiger: On August 5 User:NickPenguin opened discussion of returning to the main page with a Full Width bar on the TAFI talk page. In order to move things along, on August 14, I proposed a final call and vote regarding possible formats. On August 17, consideration and voting on 6 formats began.


 * There has been considerable discussion about linking TAFI to social media platforms. What would be the goals of integrating social media into a project on Wikipedia? How would this be implemented? Are there any downsides to attracting attention from social media?


 * Coin945: I am heavily involved in the social media aspect of TAFI, along with User: Tbayer (WMF) and User: Matthew (WMF), so I suppose I should answer this one. Essentially the social media aspect of TAFI is a 3-pronged attack: facebook, twitter, and google plus. I try to write short, snappy statuses that are creative, original, interesting, and eye-catching so skimmers will perhaps stop, think, giggle, and then want to explore further. For example, as a huge fan of Disney's Hunchback of Notre Dame, I wrote this status update: "'What makes a monster and what makes a man?' asks Clopin. Well, perhaps a monster is someone who doesn't want to help improve 'Notre Dame,' today's English Wikipedia article for improvement ‪#‎TAFI‬", to which a Facebook user who I will keep anonymous said "Hmmm. I don't know who writes these little blurbs....but that was a really interesting and original introduction to TAFI". So I must be doing something right. :). A downside is obviously that you get trolls, but they are often ignored so that is not that big of a deal. Sometimes other Facebook Wikipedians request the issues to be looked into further, but then the trolls dismiss the issue, leading one to believe that they have no substance behind their criticism. Questions have been raised in regard to a heightened risk of vandalism on TAFI pages, but the simple response is that with more exposure, the pages will have any more watchers, which means vandalism should be reverted as a rapid pace. And even then, how can you oppose change and improvement just because there is a risk that some bias will come along with the huge amount of good? The same thing have happened throughout history. What if a caveman said: "no. we cannot invent the wheel because maybe someone will make large machines with wheels on the bottom and then run over someone killing them". When you get down to it, those sorts of hypothetical criticisms, regardless of how factual they may be, cannot take away the positives that come from the change. Or at least that's how I see it..


 * TheOriginalSoni: One of the main priorities Wikipedia and its editors must look forward to today is to get good newer editors. TAFI's linkage to social media platforms is one of the ways we can try and actively search for editors. Websites like Facebook, Twitter and Google Plus could be one of the best ways for us to get more editors, and TAFI is one among several sections which get a post from the Wikimedia Foundation/Wikipedia accounts on these sites. This is a small step for Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects to get involved with the rest of the Internet, and attract more and newer editors; but it could be significant if implemented properly. As the situation currently stands, we get a handful of replies for every post that is made, and we're hoping it increases in the next few days with consistently creative blurbs from Coin, Matthew and others.


 * Coin945: Also wanted to point out that it was my idea to establish a "#TAFI" handle for both Facebook and Twitter, in an attempt to built up the brand further. It's short, concise, and memorable. Now all we need is a jingle.. :P.


 * Are there any ways that the various WikiProjects toiling away in distant corners of Wikipedia can become involved in TAFI? Have there been any proposals to pick a theme for a particular week's TAFI selections?
 * AutomaticStrikeout: I believe the idea of a theme has been discussed in the past, perhaps for special occasions such as major holidays.


 * NickPenguin: If there are active WikiProjects that would like to have a theme week, that would just be awesome. Ideas like that could certainly be brought up on the TAFI talk page, I'm sure they would be met with open arms.


 * TheOriginalSoni: There have been no such plans for TAFI to have a theme, but we absolutely welcome any editors and projects to try and collaborate to nominate and improve any articles for TAFI. As long as the articles nominated fall under our nomination guidelines (Should not be developed and preferably should be of general interest), we would love to have newer editors join our wings, and help in nomination or editing, whether it be for a category of articles, or for all articles. One of our previous TAFIs on Australian Aboriginal sacred sites was chosen when an editor was conducting a Wikipedia workshop for newer editors. The TAFI, being a topic of interest for those in the workshop, was improved by a number of them. If more of such collaborations between TAFI and Wikipedia workshops could be done, it would be excellent for all of us.


 * Coin945: The most important thing WikiProjects can do in my opinion (besides the great "theme" idea), is to keep a lookout for TAFI articles that fall under their jurisdiction, and then see if they can help out. Perhaps by copyediting, or by collecting sources, or by locating users who would be the most interested in the topic, or even just by raising awareness of the project through the relevant article. Wikiprojects seem such distant, individual entities these days. Why not bring us all together through our shared love for knowledge - the philosophy that I'm sure is the reason we all came here in the first place?


 * What are the greatest challenges facing TAFI? How do you foresee the project growing? What tasks can editors undertake that would support and improve TAFI?


 * AutomaticStrikeout: The greatest challenge may be finding an article that is workable as a collaborative target for multiple editors. It's great if an article targeted by TAFI receives major improvement from one person, but the ideal goal is for multiple editors to work together on the chosen articles. This requires the project members to find articles that are relevant to a large enough group of people.


 * NickPenguin: Right now the greatest threat to the project, or any other project really, is participation. It is operating right now, but the project needs a fresh new perspective from some new editors. The same problems, ideas and objections keep coming up when it comes to getting the project back on the Main Page, and the way forward is not clear. The unfortunate reality is that if the standstill does not come to a close, then the project will simply die out.


 * TheOriginalSoni: The most important need for the project is for a few dedicated editors to pick up from where TAFI's been left out and help us carve out a plan to decide and implement a full width main page section. Until then, we have an active Social media reach-out too, which should, hopefully, convert a few editors every week. Any editors are welcome to nominate and support suitable articles for TAFI and help improve the articles. You could also join us in improving the project and helping it get back to the main page.


 * Coin945: The greatest challenge is just getting a design everyone's happy with and running with it. This is an extremely important project in my opinion. I think Wikipedia needs to return its roots about the world coming together to collect knowledge and fix knowledge gaps. Not about a niche series of editors showing off their glossy perfect information for others to read and admire. This project will hopefully make Wikipedia more friendly and accessible. There was a time (after we were taken off the main page) that I seriously just thought we were done for. That despite all our hard work the project had been abandoned. But then the social media angle was our second wind, and we've been more successful that way than we ever were with our imperfect main page trial. So it's just a matter of people understanding the importance of what a project like this represents in regard to Wikipedia's "anybody can edit" vision (it's worth stating the quote from the critic in Ratatouille: "Not everyone can become a great artist; but a great artist *can* come from *anywhere*"), and giving people the courage to say "yes, i can do this if i really want to. i do not need to be afraid of a hostile environment of established users griping because newbies can't get simple things right". This is a helping hand to new editors. And also a great way for old editors to quickly and easily find great collaboration opportunities. The greatest challenge is to get people to understand this.


 * Anything else you'd like to add?
 * Coin945: It's interesting to note that this interview (at least I assume so) is wholly responsible for the recent push to get TAFI back on the main page. Which is very exciting to see by the way :).
 * TonyTheTiger: We would appreciate it if the community would give us feedback on the format that they would most like to see on the main page at Wikipedia_talk:Today%27s articles for improvement.

Next week's article should provide a variety of amusements. Until then, queue for your next ride in the archive.