 Okay. Hello everybody and welcome to the June 2018 Wikimedia Foundation Metrics meeting. We're going to start off today with our agenda. We have two other than the regular movement update. We have two presentations. We have Joe Metazzoni with the map improvements, the recent map improvements on the projects, as well as James Forster and Abby Ripstra who will be showing a presentation on their recent work on trying to understand the many different workflows that our editors use across the projects. If you can, if you can save your questions for after all the presentations, we're going to have a question mic over here on my left in the office and Joe Sutherland as user Fox will be in Wikimedia Dash Office on IOC as well as trying to watch the YouTube chat and comments if there are any questions there. Starting off with the movement update. We had last Wednesday on June 20th. The Wikimedia Foundation turned 15, being founded 15 years ago in Florida before finally moving up here a couple years later. We also wrapped up the Wikimedia Hackathon, the annual hackathon. I don't know what number this was, but with over 240 participants in 27 countries, about 20% of those participants were women. That wrapped up right at the end of May. As well as the Wikimedia Foundation joined the Equals Partnership, which is a growing network of groups, both corporations, non-profits, UN groups that are working together to bridge the gender gap across the digital landscape, not only on the Internet but through the technical sphere. And coming up in July, first off, we have the second Celtic Not Conference, which is hosted by the National Library of Wales and Wikimedia UK, looking on both how Wikimedia projects can help to work on both Celtic languages and indigenous languages in general. We also have the 14th annual Wikimania, which will be held this year for the first time in sub-Saharan Africa, in Cape Town, South Africa. This year's conference is going to be co-organized by both the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia South Africa, and more than 600 attendees are expected. For those who aren't able to attend, we are hoping to get as many of the big presentations up early and during the conference so that people can watch those as well. And coming up, we will have Joe Matazzoni talking about map approvals. Wait, I need the clicker though. Okay. Good morning. I'm Joe Matazzoni. I'm going to talk about a project that the collaboration team is just finishing up that we hope will make the wide world just a little bit easier to understand. Oops, why am I not on my, oh, they're not the same? Yeah, go ahead and put the slides over there. All right. Great. And so, it's called Map Improvements 2018. Imagine, if you will, that you wanted to learn about a foreign land, but the only map you had was in a mysterious script that you couldn't read. That sounds like a plot twist from some adventure story, but it's actually the situation that readers on the Wikis often found themselves in until quite recently. So what do I mean by that? If you look closely here, you'll see that this map is a babble of different languages and alphabets. And it's demonstrating one of the main limitations that our Wiki Map service has had until very recently, which is that it displayed maps in the language of the territory mapped rather than of the reader. We could call that the local language. So it displays it in the local language. And if you look at this map, so you'll see that there are no fewer than eight completely different alphabets that are being displayed here. This is from right to left. That's Japanese, Korean, Chinese. Oh, I hit the wrong thing. Chinese, Laotian, Thai, Burmese, Latin script for India, and up here in Kyrgyzstan, the Cyrillic script. So not a great user experience, right? Let's back up a little bit. The maps on the Wikis are created by an extension called Cartographer, and they have some great advantages. They're pretty easy to make. All you really need to do is add the latitude and longitude, and the software will generate it automatically. You can do that, if you're a programmer, you can do that programmatically. If you're not, you can actually use Visual Editor to just drag the map into the right location and place it. They're open source. They use geodata from the OpenStreetMap project, which is an open source project. And they have a lot of information. You can pan them. You can zoom them. You can add markers and shaded shapes to highlight certain features and things like that. And of course, as the world changes, as borders and place names change, they will stay up to date automatically, if the people at OpenStreetMap are doing their work. So, potentially very useful. Also, of course, a traditional form of data for encyclopedias, which have always been full of maps. But there's problems. Did I not change? No, this one's not staying up. That's why I'm getting confused. So there's some problems. We talked about the language support that they display only in the local language. Also, the technology was in need of a lot of updating and the standardization and general repair. And partly for those reasons, these were not available on... Yeah, this is still not updating. Okay. These were not available on most Wikipedia's. On the vast majority of Wikipedia's, you could link to an interactive map, but editors couldn't place it right on the page using a feature called MapFrame that embeds it on the page. So problems, but help was on the way. Some of you know that Santa Dogs are all agents of the community wish list, highly trained in wish granting. And in 2017, the maps community got behind the wish list proposal cartographer improvements and voted it to be the number one wish that year. And its main wish was map internationalization, which means to display the map in the language of the user. And so in January of this year, the collaboration team got the assignment to fix the various problems that I've just been talking about. And we began a six-month engagement to do that called Map Improvements 2018. And teaching cartographers about map choreographer to display maps in every language on the planet and script was a challenge, needless to say. I'm going to spare you the gory details of that. But suffice to say that after a lot of painstaking work last month, we in fact released map internationalization and I could show some screenshots, but I'm going to try a live demo. So Brendan, if you would, the map here is the one you were just looking at with the babble of different languages. And I'm going to use a new command that we created called lang equals to change that to English. So thank you. This is how this map would display on English speaking wiki. And here's how it would display on a Russian wiki. Now it's in Cyrillic. Here's how it would display on a French wiki. I could do this all day. It's like magic, right? So let's see. At the same time, oh, I'll just mention. So what I'm doing here, that's not how it would work on the wiki. I'm just doing this for the demo. On the wiki, the way it works is it would, the software tries to display every feature in, a map feature in the language, the content language of that wiki. And if it can't find a name in that language for that feature, because this is an open source project, so the data that's available varies from language to language in place to place. There's a whole fallback protocol of it tries to use certain fallback languages that have been defined and then it tries to do some other things and it eventually falls back to the local language. And you can actually see that's happening here in a couple places where it's gone, fallen back to Chinese. And yeah, so anyway, that's how it works. And at the same time as we, oops, that doesn't advance. At the same time as we released map internationalization, we also released the ability to embed maps directly on the page to 277 wikipedia's that previously lacked the feature, including English wikipedia. And in the week since we did that, our editors have been very busy. And what you see here is a map frame map that's inside an info box on a page that English wikipedia's, I guess it's some sort of project are using to trace the location of roads and highways. And you can see what I mean by an interactive map. I can pan this, I can zoom in on the broncs here, et cetera. And volunteers can code templates like this to pull latitude and longitude data from wiki data and then marry that with the open street map data and display maps like this on hundreds or thousands of pages at once. And so I poked around the wikis a little bit to find a few examples of that. And these are all just from wikis that didn't have the feature until a few weeks ago. Koreans are using map frame to pinpoint the location of metro stations. Italians are mapping the locations of football stadiums. In Estonia, they've really gone all in and they've just gone ahead and made this the template for all towns and cities. And there's over 10,000 of these on Estonian wiki. And Bengalis are mapping the locations of American universities, like my own alma mater, UC Berkeley. And before I leave the demo, I wanted to show you an example of a little bit fancier map that I found on English Wikipedia. Somebody really went a little wild here and they've mapped the location of every football stadium in the UK and added some of the fancier feature. You can see he's added all these little markers and for each marker, there's a photograph and a link to the Wikipedia page. So pretty cool. Thank you, thank you. And back to the slide deck please. Okay, there were my backup slides in case I didn't work. And right, so I'm happy to say that in the week since the release, these features have been put to use on the wikis and users have already placed more than 60,000 of these map frame maps on the wikis just since May. And a lot of that through the templates that I was showing you. And let's see. So the map improvements project did a lot more than just internationalization. If you're curious, you can read about it on this page, which is the pointer, this page, which is the project page. If you're interested in trying out map frame maps, cartographer maps, there's a really nice help page that Chris Corner or Liaison on the project completely rewrote. These links are also very useful. They have to do with some of the limitations of the features and work arounds that we provided for those. So those are interesting if you really get into it. And the map improvements project is complete as of this Friday. It was a six-months engagement, so a collab team is really getting out of the mapping business. But reading, what are they called? Reading engineering. We'll be taking over maintenance for these features. So this is the page where that work will be documented and discussed. So you can go there if you're interested. I wanted to give credit to the people who actually did all this work. This was officially a collaboration team joint, but we were really helped a lot by the members of the former maps team who really, you know, had essential expertise and gave us, were very generous with their advice. So a round of applause for all these people. Thank you guys. You're all rock stars. And in closing, I will just say that mapping is one great way to explore and understand the world. And I hope some of these new features will encourage you to try to give it a try. Thank you. Thank you, Joe. Another round of applause for Joe. Then up next we have James Forester and Abby Ripster who are going to be talking about the many different workflows editors use on the projects. And they're researching to that. Hello, Mike Chek. Mike Chek? So hello, everyone. I'm James. And I'm Abby. So, okay, my advance. Okay. So we're going to talk about the contribution tax on a project we worked on. And contributions by which we mean the work of donating content, including editing and fixing things, adding media, and in all the other ways you can contribute are the lifeblood of our wikis. So these volunteer efforts happen through a whole bunch of different workflows. And our goal of this project was to help teams at the foundation understand which of the workflows were most important to improve the experience for people. So contribution to Wikipedia is complex and it's hard to see as a whole. Understanding the workflows, like how they work together, the steps, the tools, the permissions that are required to accomplish them are key to building better experiences. So specifically we needed to help the mobile platform teams decide which workflows should be improved for people editing on mobile devices. So James is going to walk through a few ways, several ways you can accomplish one workflow to demonstrate the variation. Thanks, Abby. So, yeah, as Abby said, there are a bunch of different ways to do the same thing, and they vary across Wiki and Tool. So this is just one workflow, which is you come across something and you think it's spam. This is what it looks like when you're on the Chinese Wikipedia on desktop using visual editor and you want to nominate it as spam. You slap in a template. But on Russian, no, no, that was good. On Russian, if you're in Wikitext, it's a different template. Obviously, the interface looks quite different. On Korean, it looks, again, very different on mobile and, again, another template you have to know about. And finally, some communities like here, the Indo Wikipedia, have special community-built tools that help you guide you through the process and knows about all the different things to do. So, overall, what we wanted to do is really understand the whole kind of picture across all the Wikis that we were looking at, really understanding the taxonomy of workflows and what the issues were and where we could help. So what did we actually make? So the first thing is a taxonomy. So we wanted to understand, when we talk about contributions, what do we mean? And we broke this down into a few areas that we then kind of have these nice grand overwhelming terms for them. So we've got creation and curation, which are pretty similar, but people find that curation is a very important thing to pull out as a separate thing. Moderation is much more about change than about content. So people will be looking at a user, looking at an edit, looking at change in policy. Then finally, there were three areas that we intentionally pushed us out of scope because we felt that they weren't right for us. Financial contributions are very big and very important, but also pretty different from content contribution. Multimedia has the structure data on Commons project already going for it and we didn't want to interfere with their work. And governance is really big and meaty, but things like, you know, how people engage with an RFC is pretty hard to engage with. So we built an analysis of the five Wikis we looked at. So that's English, French, Korean, Czech, and Hindi Wikipedia's. We did that with our community ambassadors, which is great. And across the whole thing, we ended up identifying 88 workflows that were in scope and about 500 steps across those 88 workflows. So here's one of those workflows. This is what it actually looks like. So you have a workflow built up of multiple steps. Some of those steps, you make a choice. So you do one A or one B and that can be dependent on the content, on the user, on the Wiki. Some steps are done by different people. Each step, theoretically, can be done by a different person. Sometimes they're done by the same person. And sometimes they're optional. At the end of the workflow, you end up, you know, having completed the workflow and sometimes that's a success, sometimes a failure, but it's over. So we then, after, sorry, next, yeah, we then wanted to analyze those steps and those workflows. So we built a set of criteria, two kind of groups of criteria, one about users, one about how difficult it is. Do you need to know a lot of process? Do you need to be familiar with technology? Do you need to understand the subject really well? The other very different is about mobile. As Abby said, we wanted to build this for mobile users especially. And so we're looking at how possible would this be to support a mobile, not necessarily how good is it right now. So we analyzed those 10 criteria, two groups of five, against all 550-ish rows. So we ended up with 5,500 ratings, which is so fun, but really important. And then 5,500 ratings is quite a lot to people to get their heads around. So instead, we built a waiting matrix so that teams could identify this criterion is particularly important for users on Android or iOS because they're targeting different users. So that simplified things a bit. So Abby is going to talk about show, don't tell. So not only did we create the master inventory, the criteria and the waiting system, we created a visualization system. Carolyn Lamedo, a designer here at the foundation, thank you Carolyn, designed the system. And it's flexible and it consists of elements that can be mixed and matched to describe a workflow. So visualizing the workflows is important for multidisciplinary teams to be able to understand the workflows and the details of them in the same way so they can collaborate well to improve the experience. So here are the basic elements of the system. You can see the user's decisions and the reasoning for that decision along with their intention as they start the workflow. And then there's a box that describes each step in a workflow. So the step is named along with any role or tools that are required for it to be accomplished. And you can also see within each step which wiki that step is available on. And of course, there's lots of decisions that have to take place. So here's an example of a visualized workflow. It's about tagging an article or section for improvement. There's a handful of things that could be that an article or section could be tagged for improvement. They're all represented here. This big zoomed in one is about tagging an article or section as needing more context. So now James is going to walk you through the details of one workflow. Thank you, Abby. So as Abby said, we ended up with these pretty impressively huge workflow diagrams. So this represents corporate violation deletion. The workflows as they exist across the five wikis we studied, not every step of all of these bits of the workflow exists on all five wikis. And some of them you're only able to take part in if you have particular rights or a particular context. So let's kind of walk through very quickly what that would look like. So you found an article. You think it's a copy of IO. What do you do next? Well, you have to make a decision. What process are you going to follow? What's the right thing for you in this context? In this case, we're going to go down the, I think it's maybe a copyright violation. So the way that works is you tag the page as, hey, I think this is a copyright violation. So you tag it with a template. Then someone comes along and reviews that tag and goes, yeah, I agree, or no, I disagree. In this case, they agree and they add it to the listing. There's an optional step to inform the user. Hey, this article you wrote has been nominated. In this case, we won't do that. There's another optional step where people get to come along and say, hey, I'm commenting. I think this is, is not, and so on and so forth. And finally, someone, an admin generally comes along and makes an assessment as to agree, yes, this is a problem and does delete it or no, they disagree and they delist it. So in total, we ended up with 10 top workflows. So this is based on those criteria and selection and weightings that we talked about with the teams. So these are the big 10. They're not necessarily big in terms of numbers, although almost all of them are pretty large in aggregate user flow. But in particular, they are really critical. Some of them are pretty simple, like tagging a page. Some of them are really hard, like reviewing the raw feed of edits patrolling. That's pretty big workflow. And so that's the kind of pinnacle of what we pulled out and the help the teams look at. Now back to Abby. Not only is this for informing teams in the foundation about which are the workflows that we need to improve. It's also for everybody, you can use it. So there's a copy of, there's a copy of the master inventory available on the media wiki page for the project. So and the visualization system and everything is there too. So here are some things that you can do with the taxonomy, you can learn about the details of a specific edit workflow by going into the master inventory and finding it and checking it out, seeing all the details. Or if it's one of the workflows that's been visualized already, you can go find that visualization and walk through it the way James just walked you through one. So as James said, the master inventory contains workflows from Czech, English, Hindi, French and Korean wikis. And so you can go and look at the workflows of one wiki and see, you know, does it use hot cat? Does it use, you know, what are the things that it uses? How are they workflows accomplished? You can also go and compare across wikis and see, you know, between English and Hindi or Hindi and French, what are the, how do the workflows vary? Do they use what kind of gadgets or things are used or or not? And you can also contribute to the taxonomy. It's not only a one way thing. You can make a copy of the master inventory and add the workflows from your wiki if they're not already there. Make a copy and then if you need help, we'll be happy to help you with that. You can also build out a workflow that's not already visualized by using the visualization system. All the elements are on the wiki page as SVG files, which you can use a vector editor, graphics editor tool to use. There's some open source ones there, too, listed. And it would be great to be able to see the system grow. So it would be lovely if people would contribute. James and I are keeping an eye on the talk page. So if anyone needs help or has questions or suggestions, or if you build out your wiki's workflows, add them back there, add your visualizations back. So we'd love to see it grow. So thank you. Awesome. Thank you very much. And then you can probably sit close, because now it's the question and answer time for all those questions you've been holding deeply on to and weren't allowed to ask. Again, we have a question mic here in the audience in the office, and Joe will be on IRC and trying to watch a YouTube chat in case there are any questions there. Maria just lined up. Do you want to go first? Hi, this is Maria from Community Engagement. Not very tall. I have a question for the workflows presentation. Thank you so much for making that. I think that's awesome. It has, I think, so much potential. And can I ask two questions? Okay, so the first one is how did you choose the wiki's that you looked at? Hey, so how do we choose the wiki's? So initially we decided we wanted to do English, because that's the one I understood myself pretty well as a community member from English since a long time ago. We also worked with community ambassadors that we already had at the foundation for different tasks already. So from the New Readers project, we had Sadeep, who speaks Hindi from the Hindi community, and so could tell us about the Hindi community and was willing to help us out, which was great. And for the New Editors project, we had Revi from Korean and Martin from Czech Wiki's. So we already had those kind of close relationships, which really helped make that the right decision. But we also, like it wasn't just happenstance, we were also, you know, there's a reason we were working with those communities in the first place from those projects, which is that we think that they capture some of the kind of diversity around size, around different community dynamics that we wanted to look at and understand. Cool. And the other question I have is, I see that this has a lot of potential to cross this data with specific thematic areas to identify if, when you have to make a decision, is there bias if it refers, in reference to a certain topic. So one case study that I'm thinking about is all the work being done to reduce the gender gap, right? And so one common story that people hear is biographies of women get deleted more easily than those of men. And so is there a possibility of crossing this data with the data that you just mined? And how would that work? And if, yeah. Yeah. So that's a good question. To which the quick answer is I don't know. Abby, do you want to? I don't really have an idea how to do that. Do you have? Well, I think what would need to happen is that this process needs to happen again with a focus on a specific theme, maybe. So looking at specifically, for example, these workflows when it comes to content about women or these workflows when it comes to content about a specific village in a town, something like that. Okay. I mean, this content is the content inside the master inventory is about the workflows themselves rather than the content within them. But if there are certain workflows that have a particular that facilitated bias, we should find those right? Right? Yeah. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Yeah, I'd say that. So the idea with this work is to be the kind of starting point for looking in audiences to support and better, you know, help the community members doing those workflows. And certainly a key part of that would be thinking, Hey, this workflow is too easy. So for example, you know, one of the workflows is tagging an article that this needs cleanup. But if it's easy to tag an article of cleanup and hard to actually know whether or not it's cleaned up, then you build up problems in the community, right? And that's not specific to a bias issue. That's like in general, you have to be careful that your tools make things better, not worse. I think here, I'm speaking out of term, I'm sure colleagues across audiences will be really carefully thinking about that. And I think the bias issue coming in on those on those workflows is something really serious to consider when we're extending when we're supporting or potentially transforming those. Thank you. Thank you. Joe or anything? Yes. This question is kind of it's for the it's for Joe and the and everyone, I guess, who worked on maps. I've heard there are licensing, I'm just reading it verbatim. I heard there are licensing considerations that come into play when editing or displaying map information on wiki because OSM OpenStreet map uses a different license than Wikipedia. Could you talk a little bit more about how licensing works when wikimedia sites display OpenStreet maps or changes information that was originally placed there? I will say Chris Kerner has kind of already given a half answer to this on the RC. I'm not aware of Ryan, do you know? Oh, you got a mic right there. I mean, I can I can kind of comment on that very briefly. I'm not a lawyer, so please don't take anything I say as the gospel. But my understanding is that the copyright and the licensing on the data in OpenStreet map is on the data set and like the collection of data and how it is presented. The individual pieces of data themselves are not copyrighted or copyrightable. And so unless like we are reproducing like verbatim like the exact set of data in a way that is in a way that matches how OpenStreet map is presenting it, then I think like we get around a lot of the licensing issues. For example, like we are using a different styling for the data. So like we actually present different data than you see on OpenStreet map. Like you might not see like labels. Yeah, we show a particular subset. So you won't see like the same labels. Like you won't see like, you know, every like, you know, government building labeled or you won't see a shop. Yeah, there's a lot of stuff that's different if you compare like our maps with OpenStreet maps. But again, like there are probably other issues related to that that I don't know about and not covering. Yeah, sorry, we don't know that did not come up. That's good. Okay, tell me to go. Do you want a question? I have another one about OpenStreet maps in a second. We can flip back in. Yeah, I have a question about the taxonomy project. It looks super interesting, but I think it's also really useful right now as we focus on mobile contributions. I was wondering if you can say anything about what you found about the frequency of contributions. So I saw in the inventory that you actually looked at how often each workflow is being used per day, right? And so do we have information what are the most important, quantitatively speaking workflows? And also, if you talk about the week three areas, creation and curation moderation, you have an idea now what people spend most of the time or edits on how many editors are active in each area. And that's, I should say that's a question that's on our mind with the Web Team right now, as you probably know. Yeah, so the first thing I'm going to say is numbers do not tell you the whole picture. There are, you know, if there are half a million vandalism edits every day that are reverted immediately by a bot, that's a million edits that happen every day with no value added. At the same time, you know, one single edit could create an article in a beautiful state that really helps a lot of people. So like numbers are not great as a proxy for this. There's also some workflows just don't happen as often. You know, people create accounts by the tens of thousands a day. People move articles by the thousands a day. People make edits by the tens of thousands a day. And like, you know, is moving an article more important than creating an account? Maybe, maybe not. You know, it depends whether the contributor is really valuable and whether the move is good. So with that said, yeah, there are clearly some workflows which are not as important because they don't happen as often, right? So for example, some communities don't bother having a separate workflow for particular kinds of deletion because it doesn't happen often enough for their community to worry about it as a special case. And instead, they just deal with it as they go. And so building specialist tools to help out with, you know, so one of the examples that came up is you email someone because you found a blog post that you think is really great and should be an article and they email back giving you a license to put it on Wikipedia and then you copy and paste it and tell permission, you know, really complex workflows. We could build tools to support that, but that happens like three times a month on the English Wikipedia that we could find. And so that's not a useful place to focus efforts and support community members. And also it varies by wiki. So obviously English Wikipedia is very large, but also the nature of the work is different on different wikis. So Hindi wiki is much more in the kind of article creation and adjustment phase, unless on the article polishing phase as a community. And so the nature of the edits that happened there is there is a bit to English or Czech or Korean. I'm now petering out of answers to the question you asked, not because you didn't have a good question, but because I've lost track of my thread. It's really important and we should measure more of it. Yeah. There is there are numbers of how frequently it happens within the spreadsheet. So you can go and check it out. Some there's question marks because it wasn't easy to determine for everything. Yeah. So for example, if I am on doing an edit because it was bad or I'm doing an edit because I'm vandalizing, you know, distinguishing between those two is pretty challenging from a kind of programmatic perspective. I have another question from apps from RC real quick. Sorry, who's the mic? It's very, very broad. Sorry, not from apps. I should say workflows, but you're still there. My apologies. Hello. Would standardizing workflows be a good idea? Yes, that is a very good question. So the purpose of this work is not to standardize workflows, it's to understand how workflows are different between different wikis and where there are common issues and uncommon issues, different issues, not uncommon. So I think the way workflows operate is right now is very much decided by communities on their own. And I think there's no real justification for trying to get communities to change workflows, unless there's something better in it for that community. So if there is a cool tool that helps you do the workflow in a better way, if only you were to change your workflow like this, then maybe that is useful to the community, but that should still be something for the community to decide in that case. Some wikis have multiple communities that operate in different ways to do the same workflow in different ways as well. So it's not like there's one monolithic community on the English Wikipedia, for instance. But yeah, we're not pushing for, hey, there should be one size fits all kind of policies. And in particular, wikis with five active users and wikis with half a million active users are radically different in the kind of nature of workflows that will actually work. I'm Joe, I'm visiting. Very honored to be here, part of Wolf-Holens-Werdinger Project with Zach and Heather. And new to the organization, so just a question. But if the taxonomy is designed to help contributors, and you know, we've heard a little bit about the new readers project, do you have any strategies for how to disseminate this tool better in the community so that it's more widely adopted? Well, it's designed to help people understand the wikis and also the teams to decide which ones to focus on. So a couple purposes. And we don't have a strategy necessarily beyond. We've done this project and we are communicating about it now. It's available on the wikimedia page. And we're going to have a blog post. So that's the extent of our strategy at this point. So we're going to have a really valuable tool and it'd be great to get it in the hands of the community. Yeah, people can download and use it right now, too, from that page. I have a question for you guys. I think I heard you say that one of the purposes was to help identify likely targets for mobile teams to turn into mobile workflows. So I think that's a good question. And I think that's a good question. So, I think that's a good question. And if you're talking about, for mobile teams to turn into mobile workflows, did you, I know that you probably haven't made any official determinations and that may be somebody else's work, but did you come up with any likely candidates? There's that list. James, do you want to talk to this? Since you're the master of the waiting to talk about them in a great deal of detail. A, because I don't want to write checks, I can't cash. And that's up to the product managers of the individual platforms and what they're building. But the other thing is that the difference between value and between these workflows kind of matters depending on what kind of audience you're trying to serve. So for example, adding an image or video audio 3D item to a page. So that's something where there's potentially quite a lot of value to readers on articles, especially from wikis that are smaller and less well illustrated. And where the structure data on Commons work is hopefully gonna make searching for media much better. And so it make it much easier, much more pleasant activity to automatically suggest five items that might really illustrate this article well in Hindi that doesn't currently have any images. But yeah, I mean, I'm very happy to go on at length about these individual workflows, but I'm not sure whether it's great. Yeah. Yeah, so these are the priorities against the waiting criteria that we had earlier. So that covers both kind of ease of use and potential mobile ability. So not necessarily tomorrow, editing images is gonna be great, but this is an area to focus on. I have anything else on? Sorry, James, I do have one more question from maps. Keep making you stand up, it's a good exercise for you. I know the idea, I'm just gonna read these one for everyone as well, cause it's quite long. I know the idea of bringing OpenStreetMap itself into the wikimedia fold has been kicked around at various times, but we also didn't have a dedicated maps team anymore because of reasons that don't reflect lack of importance for continued development in that area. Beyond maintenance for new maps improvements, what are the bigger picture plans for moving maps forward? Yeah, I think that maps for the moment is gonna stand pat, and there won't be a lot of development of that media type in the foreseeable future. It's an important form of multimedia, but it's not a strategic priority for the company to have a full featured mapping service. So I think the team reading engineering will be doing bug fixing and making sure that it keeps working, but I don't think there will be a lot of product enhancement for that in its plan. Janie? Hello. Just an addition to that, the answer is, the reason why the collaboration team spent five to six months working on maps this year is because people voted making improvements to Cartographer up to number one on the community wishlist survey back in November and December. We are absolutely encouraging people, especially folks who are really interested in maps, were amazingly successful at getting it up to the top of the survey last year. So if that happens again this year or in future years, if folks have improvements that they wanna see to the maps project, the community wishlist survey is gonna be the way that we will get that to happen and folks will get dedicated engineering resources. Thank you. Oh, okay, okay. Last call, any other questions on IRC or anybody else in the office that wants to ask? All right, then we move on to a slightly different, oh, before we move on to Wiki Love, just remember that we need your help, whether you're a foundation staff member, a affiliate member, a community member, all of the above. We need your help to make sure that this stays a relevant and interesting meeting. And so please submit your ideas, presentations that you wanna see or presentations that you wanna give up on Meta. We have a page already set up right there. And remember that you don't need to be a staff member. You don't need to be an affiliate member if you wanna give one of those presentations. If you think you have something interesting to present to everybody. And with that, we'll have Wiki Love. So if there's anybody who wants to give out a shout out to either an individual or a group or thank you, just you can head to the mic in here again or Joe can collect it on IRC, anything else? Anybody? I can start off just with the communications team, especially Greg who's not here and Zach, but I know sort of everybody worked on, there was an awesome little party that we set up here for the 15th anniversary that came together relatively quickly and had a beautiful cake and it was very nice. You stick around after this, there might be a small little smidgen of that that we've shown and a pinata, which went headless with one big swipe from Robert. I'll just quickly squeeze one in from IRC. Wiki Love to Portuguese Wikipedia for reaching one million articles. Then in the office. Is this on? Great. I wanna thank additional people involved with the foundation 15th birthday party, Robert, Sasha, Lynette, everybody who came together to put it together, Brendan, who put all these computers together last minute. Also just general Wiki Love for Brendan, getting most of these World Cup matches on. It's been really great, right? Nice work, Brendan. Hello, I don't actually know all of the people who were involved in this, so I'm just gonna say the people who organized the Wikimedia Foundation's involvement in the LGBT Pride Parade this last Sunday. Thank you so much. There was a good bunch of people. I think it was somewhere around what, like 40 people marching, which was really exciting. It was fun and I think it makes a lot of people at the organization feel more connected. It was especially nice as we were marching to see people who were really excited to see us and our work and were really appreciative. There were a bunch kind of, as you go along, every couple of minutes, somebody would just lose their mind. They were so happy to see us there. I love Wikipedia and I know of at least two instances, I heard one of them, where people along the way yelled out, thank you for getting me through college. So there you go, thanks to all the organizers for that. Definitely, it was a lot of fun. More and more people seemed to actually know who we are, even though everything says Wikimedia. Maria, did you have something? I want to thank Moriel for being, hi, this is Maria, for being such a wonderful leader and an inspiration and opening spaces for dialogue for many of us. Anything else on IRC, Joe? Anything else in the office? And with that, I think we will wrap up. Thank you everybody for coming. The next meeting will be there. I'll see many of you in Wikimedia. And for those who are interested, you can take a small look at what we just put up on the screen, which was a little board that we got together for the party in the office of what other people looked at, like at 15. Thank you.