My understanding from Mike's weekly reporting is that this project is now at risk due to the budget for Prolific not being approved, yet. I'm following up on this.

Thank you, yes that's correct. We (@Bethany and I) are in communication with both Prolific and our approval people at this point, it seems like some wheels are starting to turn.

Update: @Bethany was successful in negotiation a custom solution with our vendor Userlytics, and at this point we have collected our full dataset for V1. We anticipate that V2 work will continue into Q1, and we also anticipate that V2 will also have a need for a survey component, so we are trying to think ahead to how best to support this. Regardless, we're currently officially in the survey analysis phase of this work.

Update: We have been working with our collected dataset for one week, and presented some very preliminary emerging findings to project stakeholders on May 29. The presentation deck can be found here (WMF credentials required). We will continue to work with these survey responses in triangulation with an ongoing qualitative consideration of previous WMF-sponsored research in this area throughout the month of June. Work on V2 archetypes is expected to continue into Q1.

Analysis on the survey dataset continues. We've found that the distinction of "generalists" vs "specialists", based on participants' selection of the form of contribution that is "most important to you", is meaningful in a lot of different ways. Generalists combine three of the most common contribution forms we heard about (899 respondents total), and specialists combine most of the smaller and more specific forms of contributions we heard about (549 respondents). Significant differences include:

• specialists spend more time per week contributing
• specialists have a stronger and more positive relationship with Wikipedia
• specialists are more strongly motivated in a couple of motivational dimensions
• specialists and generalists are motivated by similar groups of motivators, but the groupings have several important differences
• generalists experience "lack of interest" as a barrier at a much higher rate (18%) than specialists (3%)

Now we're working on breaking both groups into clusters on the basis of their contribution motivations. clusters are anticipated to form the basis of volunteer archetypes in the final presentation of deliverables.

We're getting closer to circulating a preliminary version of V1 Archetypes. We have settled on 6 different Archetypes, differentiated at the highest level by different combinations of motivations (as reported in our survey). These motivation-differentiated Archetypes also differ on a number of other dimensions, including how much time their members spend volunteering per week, various aspects of their relationship with Wikipedia, their beliefs about technology and privacy, etc. We're trying to present Archetypes characterized by meaningful and useful (for the WMF) differences that have an empirical basis, and to link the Archetypes in various ways to things we already *think* we know about existing Wikimedia contributors.

(This task is a carryover from April-June timeframe (Q4) to July-September (Q1). Mike expects the task to conclude in July. I set the deadline to the end of July. @MRaishWMF please close it once concluded. Thanks!)

We recently presented our V1 Archetypes to our assembled stakeholder group, and took the opportunity to gather feedback from them. Currently, we are working to incorporate this feedback into a deliverable document that we hope to circulate within the next week or two. At that point, V1 Archetypes can be considered concluded, although work on V2 will continue until the end of Q2 in December.

Continuing work on the V1 deliverable (picking the appropriate "packaging"), and also starting to receive questions from interested Archetype users that are helping us to frame them. A few teams have indicated they plan to use the Archetypes in upcoming programming, including at Wikimania, and have asked questions about (1) how we arrived at them, (2) where we should expect to see more or fewer Wikimedians, (3) which Archetypes might map to which community roles, and a few other areas. The Archetypes research team is motivated to support these instances of use and will incorporate this feedback both into the reporting of V1 and the planning for V2. We're also keeping an eye on all instances of Archetype use as part of our use evaluation component planned for V2.

Finalizing V1 deliverable (final touches on value propositions and opportunities for WMF strategic planners); prepping for Wikimania presence and community feedback mechanism.

Moving closer to the Wikimania presentation where the team hopes to gather feedback from interested community members next week. After Wikimania, we will be able to consider V1 officially "completed"

The V1 Archetypes were presented at Wikimania and have been uploaded to Commons. Although evaluation work continues (paying attention to where and how the Archetypes are being used, and what unmet needs still exist), it will be considered part of the ongoing V2 Archetypes work. At this point, we can consider V1 Archetypes to be concluded.

Congrats, @MRaishWMF and Sneha for finishing this task. It is really nice to see how much you achieved in a very short timeline. Thank you and looking forward to the next steps: T367832

Thank you for your support! And thank you also to the Product Design and Research teams for supporting this work so effectively and generously over the last few months :)