The List Effect: How Organized Information Drives Wikipedia Growth

Please note that this post reflects the experiences of a contractor involved in the pilot list-building service, and all recommendations and suggestions presented herein are intended for future consideration by members of the Wikimedia movement. This project would not have been possible without the groundwork, expertise, and support of the dedicated teams at the Wikimedia Foundation. I would like to specifically acknowledge the collaborative efforts of the Community Growth, Program Management, Languages and Content Growth, Movement Communications, Core Experiences, and Research & Decision Science teams. Your contributions have been invaluable.

Beginning in summer 2024, a pilot project was undertaken to determine interest in a service aimed at supporting Wikimedia organizers and editors in developing topical lists. The project grew from an evaluation of the Organizer Lab, which found that list-building was particularly challenging for participants (read more here and here). We hypothesized that offering list-building as a service would help communities make more targeted contributions in their topic areas. This post outlines the role of topical lists in supporting campaigns and editing, tools and experts available to support this task, and strategies for the future development, implementation, and sustainment of list-building support.

What are topical lists, and how do they support editing campaigns?

Topical lists (also referred to as ‘worklists’) organize information around a specific subject or theme and facilitate research and exploration. These subject-oriented compilations serve many purposes, including as navigational aids that provide a structured overview of related Wikipedia projects or articles. Topical lists may consist of red links, existing articles, references, or something else, depending on the overall purpose of the list. Entries in a topical list may be accompanied by brief descriptions, annotations, or other contextual information, enhancing their usefulness. Their potential for flexibility and diversity is what make topical lists unique. However, this can also make creating them within clearly defined parameters difficult.

Topical lists play a crucial role in Wikimedia editing campaigns, particularly those focused on improving coverage of specific subject areas. An example are the article lists created for Wikimedia CEE Spring. Editors can use topical lists to assess the current state of Wikipedia’s coverage of a particular subject, including the breadth of the coverage of the topic. By comparing the list to external sources or expert knowledge, volunteers can identify missing articles or areas where existing articles are in need of enrichment.

Topical lists provide a clear framework for organizing editing tasks. Topical lists can serve as a central point of collaboration for campaign organizers and editors. Organizers use lists to track editor activity, assign tasks, and ensure comprehensive coverage of the subject. Additionally, these lists help to surface gaps in knowledge, guiding edits to close these gaps

Topical lists are either created manually or by using tools. And, while crucial, many see the task of list-building as a tedious administrative duty. Manual list creation may yield the most comprehensive results, but the process is time-consuming. Tools can help automate the process, but they may present new obstacles. 

What list-building tools are available?

Several tools exist to support topical list-building efforts. These include the aptly named List-building Tool and Listeria, PetScan, and the Wikidata Query Service. It is worth noting that many of these tools are primarily designed for compiling lists of topics, rather than lists of tasks that need to be completed. However, tools pose their own unique challenges.

Many tools have a steep learning curve, especially for new organizers, creating a barrier to entry. 

The complexity of some list-building tools, such as the Wikidata Query Service with its structured query language, can be particularly daunting for individuals who are new to Wikimedia organizing workflows or those unfamiliar with the underlying data structures. This initial hurdle can discourage potential contributors who might otherwise be willing to engage in topical list creation using the tool to guide edits, thus limiting the pool of organizers capable of effectively utilizing these resources. Consequently, the potential for leveraging these powerful tools to improve Wikimedia’s topical coverage may go unrealized due to the challenges associated with mastering their interfaces and functionalities.

Some tools have similar functions, creating overlap and confusion.

The existence of multiple tools with overlapping functionalities, such as PetScan and the List-building Tool both offering ways to generate lists based on category intersections, can lead to confusion among editors. This redundancy makes it difficult for users to determine which tool is best suited for a specific task, potentially leading to inefficient workflows and duplicated efforts. Furthermore, the lack of clear distinctions and guidance on the optimal use cases for each tool can frustrate editors and hinder their ability to effectively build and maintain topical lists.

Long-term maintenance of tools can be an issue when support and updates are not sustained over time.

The sustainability of list-building tools is a significant concern, as their continued functionality relies on ongoing maintenance and updates to remain compatible with changes in Wikimedia projects’ infrastructure and data. Tools developed by volunteers and by the Wikimedia Foundation have faced challenges to long-term upkeep, potentially leading to obsolescence and the loss of valuable resources for topical list creation.

Locating an appropriate tool can be a challenge.

With the increasing number of tools and resources available within the broader Wikimedia ecosystem, it can be difficult for editors to discover the specific list-building tool that best meets their needs. The lack of a centralized and easily searchable repository or clear guidance on the available options contributes to this challenge. Editors may be unaware of the existence of tools that could significantly streamline their list-building efforts, leading to reliance on more manual and time-consuming methods or potentially hindering their ability to contribute effectively to topical coverage.

An outcome of the pilot list-building service project was the creation of a page on Meta-Wiki focusing on tools that can help campaign organizers create lists of articles relevant to their topic. While the page is not intended to be comprehensive, it does identify the 10 tools most frequently referenced by organizers when discussing list-building processes. For each tool, keywords, a brief description, an example of use, and resources to get started are provided.

This initial compilation serves as a valuable starting point, but its true potential lies in continued growth and refinement. We strongly encourage campaign organizers and editors to visit the page, explore the listed resources, and contribute their own experiences, additional tools, and insights to further enhance this community resource.

What role might librarians play in topical list-building?

Information professionals, particularly librarians, regularly participate in collaborative efforts that significantly support Wikimedia organizers and editors. The ongoing Wikipedia Loves Libraries campaign is a wonderful example of an initiative that bridges the gap between the Wikimedia community and library professionals, while the #1Lib1Ref (One Librarian, One Reference) campaign encourages librarians to add citations to Wikipedia articles, improving their reliability. These initiatives demonstrate how librarians are specially positioned to provide access to reliable sources, improve article verifiability, and enhance information organization. 

An important aspect of the pilot list-building service was demonstrating how librarians might support the creation of timely and relevant topical lists. Overwhelmingly organizers and editors expressed interest in partnering with librarians to overcome the challenges of creating, sharing, and maintaining topical lists. An opportunity identified through the project was the need for coordinated, localized efforts that emphasize collaboration with subject matter experts. In addition to advanced research skills, these experts should have a strong knowledge of local/regional trends and issues. We encourage communities to consider this type of collaboration when developing partnerships with libraries and other knowledge institutions. However, there is an understanding that while working with a librarian is ideal, it is not the only solution (especially in time-sensitive situations).

Case Study from the list-building pilot: WITI Hall of Fame Inductees

The “Women in Technology International Hall of Fame Inductees” topical list is composed of the names of recognized women in technology whose biographical articles are missing on Wikipedia (“red links”).This list serves as a practical example of the list-building service pilot project’s goals and the function of topical lists in editing campaigns.

The list offers a structured overview and a clear “to-do” list for editors interested in addressing the gender gap and improving coverage of notable women in STEM fields. Each entry acts as a discrete task. Crucially, the list goes beyond just names, including curated references (external links, articles, profiles) for each inductee. This directly aids editors in article creation, aligning with the goal of topical lists containing references and contextual information to enhance usefulness. A list like this, that also includes structured tasks like ‘add a reference’ are also useful to engage editors at varying levels of experience, with newcomers able to work on a topic by virtue of it being listed. By identifying specific, sourced tasks and linking to related initiatives (WikiProject Women in Red/Halls of Fame), the list acts as a central point for collaboration among editors focused on this area.

The curated nature of the WITI list, with specific sources provided for each entry, demonstrates significant manual effort, aligning with the desire for comprehensive groundwork for article creation. While tedious, this manual curation directly addresses a key challenge: finding reliable sources. Generating such a specific list might be complex using automated tools like PetScan or Wikidata Query Service without significant expertise, underscoring the noted “steep learning curve” and potential discovery issues. The inclusion of one Wikidata link (for Sandra Burke) hints at the potential integration but also the specialized knowledge possibly required.

This list perfectly illustrates the potential role for information professionals, particularly librarians. The process of identifying red links and, more significantly, locating reliable biographical sources heavily relies on advanced research skills – a core competency of librarians. Organizers’ expressed interest in partnering with librarians to overcome list-creation challenges is validated by this list’s format; it’s essentially pre-packaged research ready for article writing, mimicking the support an expert researcher could provide. It demonstrates a practical way to bridge the gap between Wikimedia communities and subject matter experts.

Strategies & Processes for List-building Support

The pilot list-building service, while demonstrating clear interest from Wikimedia organizers and editors in leveraging topical lists, ultimately yielded only a limited number of completed and usable lists despite proactive outreach. This outcome underscores a crucial insight: the primary hurdle isn’t necessarily a lack of desire to create topical lists, but rather a set of interconnected challenges that hinder their effective development. 

One significant factor appears to be timing. Organizers are most receptive to considering such a service when initially planning their campaigns, but outreach too close to the event may find them already overwhelmed. Additionally, we observed instances where organizers expressed initial interest through inquiries or exploratory calls but subsequently became unavailable for the necessary follow-up and collaborative steps to define and create the lists.

Our findings strongly suggest that the real need lies in three key areas: bolstering topical research skills within Wikimedia communities, providing robust support in learning to navigate and utilize existing list-building tools, and establishing a dedicated space for resources and guidance related to all aspects of list creation and maintenance. Product teams should continue to integrate accessible list-building features within core experiences, such as the topic filters that were recently introduced to content translation.   

Moving forward, the focus of a future service should shift from solely producing lists on demand to empowering Wikimedia communities to build and maintain their own high-quality topical resources. This necessitates a multi-pronged approach. This could involve developing and delivering accessible training modules and workshops focused on information literacy. These sessions could equip editors with the critical skills needed to identify reliable sources, evaluate information effectively, and understand the principles of constructing well-defined and useful lists.

To address the reported challenges with existing list-building tools, we suggest a dedicated effort to demystify their usage. This could include creating clear and user-friendly tutorials, comprehensive documentation, and potentially interactive training environments. Offering targeted guidance on when and how to best utilize each tool, along with practical examples and troubleshooting support, would significantly lower the barrier to entry and encourage broader adoption. For example, the recently introduced topic filters within Content Translation serve as a practical illustration of a multi-faceted list-building support service integrated directly into a core editing experience. These filters not only aid in content discovery but also implicitly guide users towards identifying and grouping related information, a fundamental aspect of list creation.

Finally, we recommend creating and consistently maintaining a dedicated online space for all list-building related materials. This dedicated space, potentially building upon the initial Topical List building page on Meta, could serve as a comprehensive repository for best practices, tool documentation, case studies of successful lists, templates, and community forums for peer support and knowledge sharing. This centralized resource would address the current challenge of discoverability and provide a consistent point of reference for editors embarking on list-building endeavors.

In conclusion, while the initial vision of a direct list-building service encountered limitations, the pilot project has illuminated a more fundamental need within the Wikimedia ecosystem. By strategically focusing on enhancing multiple literacies (information, digital, and media), providing comprehensive tool documentation and training, and integrated product features, we can empower Wikimedia organizers and editors to create and maintain the vital topical lists that underpin effective editing campaigns and contribute to the continued growth and quality of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects.