Community Insights/2016-17 Report/Programs

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Circle arrow left font awesome.svg Back to project page
Atom noun project.svg
Community Engagement Insights 2016-17 Report

Key Findings from the Community Programs team[edit]

Which were your team's most important research questions?

Editors

  • Evaluate access to research materials
  • To learn and monitor awareness of TWL program
  • Evaluate skills related to retrieving research materials
  • Evaluate editor awareness of research/Wikipedia literacy challenges for members of the public
  • Identify awareness/goodwill of GLAM-Wiki and Library partnerships
  • Identify degree of goodwill towards GLAM-Wiki or other partnerships with other organizations
  • To learn level of engagement in outreach work (like GLAM-Wiki or Library Partnerships)

Affiliates & Program leaders

  • Identify depth of understanding of GLAM-Wiki

To what extent were these questions answered?

We are still in the process of doing cross-sectional analysis of the data with questions like those focused on main WikiProject and Contribution types, so for some questions, we are not sure about how effectively they answered our questions about the community. However, the initial data looks promising in letting us evaluate and calibrate our effort in communications and development of learning materials for various program activities. We expect for a number of these to produce very actionable activities when cross-sectional analysis is possible.

What additional analyses does your team need?

  • Breakdown by primary Wikimedia project
  • Breakdown by answer to certain questions
  • PR02 needs account age information
  • ‘Other’ responses on PR01, PR02, PR04, PR08, PR23

Which questions surprised your team?

  • 11% awareness of 'Free publisher research access through The Wikipedia Library'
    • And the difference between this response and 23% of users having heard of The Wikipedia Library
    • English Wikipedia was 6% of respondents
  • 17% of editors reported starting research by often or almost always going to the library. 42% of editors reported that they never start research by going to the library.
    • Almost half of users never go to the library to start research
    • Nearly 1 in 5 often use their library
  • 21% of editors were aware of IABot - a project which started just a year ago (as many as the reference desk, 10% more than free research access through TWL)
  • 71% of editors with resource access challenges had problems due to them not being available digital formats - comparable to the % that ran into paywall issues.
    • This particular question suggests that there is still a very wide gap between the research that community members want to do, and what’s available to them in existing research programs -- because existing programs have focused on en-mass acquisition systems.

How does your team you plan to use the data?

The programs team plans to evaluate the various amounts of awareness of and interest in learning more about specific program areas. We plan to expand communications and education materials around these areas in order to empower individuals that want to participate more extensively in the space -- for example, we see that a number of program leaders can explain edit-a-thons and are interested in doing edit-a-thons in the next twelve months, thus there is lots of opportunity for compiling more thorough training materials to support such events. We intend to monitor awareness in subsequent surveys to evaluate the effectiveness of these initiatives.

We also intend to break responses down by primary language / wikimedia project to plan and monitor our global work. Understanding the challenges editors face in each community will be important so that we can tailor our support to each community’s needs.

One of our goals for the survey was to evaluate the level of interest and engagement editor communities feel in facilitating understanding of the projects, especially when communicating with target communities such as educators or librarians, who have vested professional interest in understanding our projects. One of our larger operating theories about the Wikimedia programs, is that the programs help community members become better communicators of our projects, in turn building interest and investment from outreach communities. We see in PR17, PR18, PR20 and for program leaders: LE12, PR21 & LE22, PR23, a number of interesting gaps in awareness about the various program tactics and outreach communities among the broader editor community and program leaders. One space for us to explore, in the coming years is building the broad awareness of how these target groups could benefit from the community among existing editors, in turn increasing interest and engagement in the programs themselves. Campaigns like #1lib1ref and #OAWiki gives us platforms for communication to both internal and external communities, and the Education team is also working to develop better understanding of how Education program activities better correlate with what Educators find persuasive: learning outcomes.

What survey questions would your team like to ask next time?

Next time that we run the survey, we would like to include more questions about other program types. Currently the program questions were heavily focus on GLAM-Wiki and the Wikipedia Library, because of the staffing available at the time of developing the survey (in late 2016, the Education team was in the middle of refiling several positions on the team). Additionally, as of the survey development, the Programs team had not developed a holistic cross-program strategy: previously the programs had been organizationally independent of each other; and, we also are identifying additional program areas, such as Gender programming and support of STEM field interests separate from Education and partnering institutions. Each of these gaps should be addressed by rewriting some of our existing question or adding ones targeted for impact in each of these areas.

Things we want to change the next time we run the survey:

  • PR07:
    • Option 8 “The visual editors Citoid” may have been unclear, because the auto-fill reference tool is not clearly labeled as “Citoid” in the user interface.
  • PR08/PR09:
    • Add a ‘does not apply’ option for users not actively engaged in research.*
  • PR21
  • PR09/PR10:
    • These questions are worded very similarly and respondents may have interpreted them in the same way if presented with both (distinction between searching and accessing).

Community Programs team report[edit]

Editors[edit]

Question 269 (PR01)[edit]

What types of research tools or resources do you have access to? (select all that apply)

Participants could select more than one option

13% did not select an option [?]


1 – A university library (35%)
2 – A public or government library (56%)
3 – Archival or museum collections (21%)
4 – Other special collections or research libraries (15%)
5 – Other institutional resource (specify): (4%)
6 – Personal subscriptions to academic databases (13%)
7 – Personal subscriptions to newspapers or genealogical databases. (17%)
8 – Personal research collection or privately held library (50%)
9 – Other personal resource (specify): (5%)
56% of survey participants have access to a public or government library, 50% have access to their personal libraries and 35% have access to a university library.


Question 270 (PR02)[edit]

Over the last 12 months, what have been the top three ways you spent your time as a volunteer working with content on Wikimedia projects?

Participants could select more than one option

1% did not select an option [?]


1 – Article writing, research, and expansion (77%)
2 – Anti vandalism, anti-Copyright Violation, or new content patrol (26%)
3 – Copyediting (28%)
4 – Content quality review, discussions about specific content, and feedback (18%)
5 – Illustrating content with media (14%)
6 – Formatting and Wikifying (20%)
7 – Contributing media (18%)
8 – Enriching media descriptions (3%)
9 – Transcription on Wikisource (3%)
10 – Template development and implementation (5%)
11 – Categorization (15%)
12 – Data enrichment in Wikidata or in Infoboxes and other templates (9%)
13 – Translating any content from one language to another (24%)
14 – Other content work (specify): (4%)
'


Question 272 (PR03)[edit]

How often do you search for or use non-Wikimedia resources (books, websites, research papers) when creating content on Wikimedia projects?


Median = 5

1 – Never (3%)
2 – Rarely (4%)
3 – Sometimes (14%)
4 – Often (28%)
5 – Almost always (51%)
79% of sampled editors who participated in the survey reported searching or using often or almost always for non-Wikimedia resources (books, websites, research papers) when creating content on Wikimedia projects.


Question 273.01 (PR08)[edit]

When contributing to Wikimedia projects, how often do you start research by... - ...using a search engine (e.g. Yahoo, Google)?


Median = 4

1 – Never (4%)
2 – Rarely (2%)
3 – Sometimes (14%)
4 – Often (31%)
5 – Almost always (48%)
79% of sampled editors who participated in the survey reported using using a search engine (e.g. Yahoo, Google) to start research for contributing to Wikipedia articles.


Question 273.02 (PR08)[edit]

When contributing to Wikimedia projects, how often do you start research by... - ...searching on Google Scholar?


Median = 1

1 – Never (58%)
2 – Rarely (15%)
3 – Sometimes (11%)
4 – Often (10%)
5 – Almost always (6%)
16% of sampled editors who participated in the survey reported searching on Google Scholar to start research for contributing to Wikipedia articles. 58% of sampled editors who participated in the survey reported that they never use Google scholar



Question 273.03 (PR08)[edit]

When contributing to Wikimedia projects, how often do you start research by... - ...searching in a library catalogue or search tool?


Median = 2

1 – Never (35%)
2 – Rarely (19%)
3 – Sometimes (20%)
4 – Often (19%)
5 – Almost always (8%)
27% of sampled editors who participated in the survey reported searching often or almost always in a library catalogue or search tool to find research for contributing to Wikipedia articles. 35% of sampled editors who participated in the survey reported that they never search a library catalogue or search tool.


Question 273.04 (PR08)[edit]

When contributing to Wikimedia projects, how often do you start research by... - ...looking at recommendations on-wiki?


Median = 2

1 – Never (44%)
2 – Rarely (24%)
3 – Sometimes (20%)
4 – Often (10%)
5 – Almost always (2%)
12% of sampled editors who participated in the survey reported starting research by often or almost always looking at recommendations on-wiki. 35% of sampled editors who participated in the survey reported that they never start research by looking at recommendations on-wiki.


Question 273.05 (PR08)[edit]

When contributing to Wikimedia projects, how often do you start research by... - ...looking at source recommendations created by other Wikis?


Median = 2

1 – Never (38%)
2 – Rarely (23%)
3 – Sometimes (24%)
4 – Often (13%)
5 – Almost always (4%)
17% of sampled editors who participated in the survey reported starting research by often or almost always looking at source recommendations created by other Wikis. 38% of sampled editors who participated in the survey reported that they never start research by looking at source recommendations created by other Wikis.


Question 273.06 (PR08)[edit]

When contributing to Wikimedia projects, how often do you start research by... - ...searching in a database that I have access to?


Median = 2

1 – Never (36%)
2 – Rarely (15%)
3 – Sometimes (18%)
4 – Often (21%)
5 – Almost always (10%)
36% of sampled editors who participated in the survey reported starting research by often or almost always searching in a database that I have access to. 31% of sampled editors who participated in the survey reported that they never start research by searching in a database that I have access to.


Question 273.07 (PR08)[edit]

When contributing to Wikimedia projects, how often do you start research by... - ...going to the library?


Median = 2

1 – Never (42%)
2 – Rarely (21%)
3 – Sometimes (21%)
4 – Often (11%)
5 – Almost always (6%)
17% of sampled editors who participated in the survey reported starting research by often or almost always going to the library. 42% of sampled editors who participated in the survey reported that they never start research by going to the library.


Question 273.08 (PR08)[edit]

When contributing to Wikimedia projects, how often do you start research by... - ...using Open Access repositories or databases?


Median = 2

1 – Never (37%)
2 – Rarely (20%)
3 – Sometimes (19%)
4 – Often (17%)
5 – Almost always (7%)
37% of sampled editors who participated in the survey reported starting research by often or almost always using Open Access repositories or databases. 24% of sampled editors who participated in the survey reported that they never start research by using Open Access repositories or databases.


Question 273.09 (PR08)[edit]

When contributing to Wikimedia projects, how often do you start research by... - Other (specify)


Median = 3

1 – Never (37%)
2 – Rarely (3%)
3 – Sometimes (14%)
4 – Often (20%)
5 – Almost always (26%)
46% of sampled editors who participated in the survey reported starting research by often or almost always in another way from previous options. 37% of sampled editors who participated in the survey reported that they never start research in another way from previous options.


Question 274 (PR06)[edit]

Have you heard of The Wikipedia Library?


Median = 0

1 – No (77%)
2 – Yes (23%)
23% of sampled editors who participated in the survey reported having heard about the Wikipedia Library.


Question 275 (PR07)[edit]

Which of the following tools, services and resources are you aware of? (select all that apply)

Participants could select more than one option

51% did not select an option [?]


1 – Source sharing / Resource Exchange (WP:RX) (9%)
2 – Wikipedia’s Reference Desk (21%)
3 – Free publisher research access through The Wikipedia Library (11%)
4 – Wikipedia Visiting Scholars (6%)
5 – Open Access Signalling Project and/or OABot (1%)
6 – Book or research grants offered by my local affiliate or chapter (10%)
7 – Internet Archive’s Wikipedia bot to fix dead-links in Wikipedia citations (21%)
8 – The visual editor’s Citoid (3%)
9 – Forward to Libraries (6%)
10 – Special:BookSources (7%)
11 – Wikipedia:Research help (WP:RH) on English Wikipedia only (3%)
12 – The Books & Bytes Wikipedia Library Newsletter (3%)
21% of respondents are familiar with the Wikipedia Library Reference desk and 21% are familiar with Internet Archive’s Wikipedia bot to fix dead-links in Wikipedia citations. It's important to note that 51% of all the respondents who saw the question did not select any option.


Question 276 (PR09)[edit]

How often do you run into challenges searching for research materials you need for contributing to Wikimedia projects?


Mean = 3.02

1 – Never (9%)
2 – Rarely (17%)
3 – Sometimes (40%)
4 – Often (27%)
5 – Almost always (6%)
33% of sampled editors who participated in the survey reported often or almost always running into challenges searching for research materials needed for contributing to Wikimedia projects.


Question 278 (PR04)[edit]

Which of the following describe challenges you have when accessing research materials for your Wikimedia work? (select all that apply)

The materials I need..

Participants could select more than one option

4% did not select an option [?]


1 – ... are not available in digital formats (71%)
2 – ... are behind a paywall (67%)
3 – … require me to travel great distances (27%)
4 – ... are only accessible at a library or other provider during my hours of employment (22%)
5 – ... cannot be accessed legally in my location, because of licensing restrictions (22%)
6 – ...are hard to use with my internet access or editing device (9%)
7 – ...for another reason (specify): (5%)
71% of participants selected that resources are not available in digital formats and 67% selected that materials are behind a paywall.


Question 279 (PR10)[edit]

How often do you run into challenges accessing research materials you need for contributing to Wikimedia projects?


Mean = 2.89

1 – Never (9%)
2 – Rarely (23%)
3 – Sometimes (41%)
4 – Often (21%)
5 – Almost always (5%)
26% of sampled editors who participated in the survey reported often or almost always running into challenges accessing research materials needed for contributing to Wikimedia projects.


Question 281 (PR18)[edit]

To what extent do you feel prepared to explain anything related to Wikipedia or Wikimedia (e.g. culture, programs) to a non-Wikimedian who only reads Wikipedia?


Mean = 3.29

3% selected "No opinion" [?]


1 – Not at all (8%)
2 – Slightly (15%)
3 – Moderately (32%)
4 – Mostly (28%)
5 – Completely (16%)
44% of sampled editors who participated in this question reported feeling mostly or completely prepared to explain anything related to Wikipedia or Wikimedia (e.g. culture, programs) to a non-Wikimedian who only reads Wikipedia.


Question 282 (PR20)[edit]

Without any preparation, I feel I could explain to a librarian or educator about Wikimedia projects as a tool for (select that apply):

Participants could select more than one option

11% did not select an option [?]


1 – Sharing expert knowledge with the public (59%)
2 – Helping members of the public find expert research materials (41%)
3 – Exposing the public to digital media documenting rare cultural objects (25%)
4 – Student’s writing research papers for their classes (37%)
5 – Educational assignment where students share their research on Wikipedia (25%)
6 – Advancing free or open copyright policies (27%)
7 – Showing how open collaborative projects can work on the internet. (44%)
8 – Adding freely licensed media files to Wikimedia Commons from collections (38%)
59% of participants selected that they could explain Wikipedia as a tool for sharing expert knowledge with the public to an educator or librarian.


Question 283 (PR17)[edit]

In the past 3 months, I have (select all that apply):

Participants could select more than one option

1% did not select an option [?]


1 – Explained to a friend or family member how Wikipedia works (49%)
2 – Explained to an educator, librarian, or student how Wikipedia works (17%)
3 – Discussed a Wikimedia Project’s culture with someone else (29%)
4 – Helped someone make their first contribution (e.g. editing, uploading image) (15%)
5 – Introduced someone to an outreach program (e.g. GLAM-Wiki, the Education Program, Editathons) (5%)
6 – Helped someone understand or use Wikidata (9%)
7 – I have done none of these (37%)
49% of participants have explained to a friend or family member how Wikipedia works in the last 3 months, while 37% have not done any of these.


Question 285 (PR13)[edit]

To what extent are you familiar with GLAM-Wiki projects:


Mean = 1.39

1 – I have never heard of GLAM-Wiki projects (71%)
2 – I have only heard of GLAM-Wiki projects, but never participated in one (23%)
3 – I have participated in GLAM-Wiki projects, but never organized one (4%)
4 – I have organized GLAM-Wiki projects in the past, but no longer organize them (1%)
5 – I am currently an organizer of GLAM-Wiki projects (1%)
71% of sampled editors who participated in the survey reported never having heard of GLAM-wiki projects and 6% of participants reported participating in a GLAM-wiki project or having organized one currently or in the past.


Question 286.01 (PR14)[edit]

To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following:
When any Wikimedia organization partners with external organizations like universities, museums or technology companies…- ...it helps us further our educational mission.


Median = 4

17% selected "No opinion" [?]


1 – Strongly disagree (3%)
2 – Somewhat disagree (3%)
3 – Neither agree nor disagree (7%)
4 – Somewhat agree (44%)
5 – Strongly agree (43%)
87% of sampled editors who participated in this question reported that they agree or strongly agree with the following statement: "When any Wikimedia organization partners with external organizations like universities, museums or technology companies it helps us further our educational mission." 17% of those who answered the question selected "no opinion".


Question 286.02 (PR14)[edit]

To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following:
When any Wikimedia organization partners with external organizations like universities, museums or technology companies…it helps us further our free content mission.


Median = 4

15% selected "No opinion" [?]


1 – Strongly disagree (3%)
2 – Somewhat disagree (3%)
3 – Neither agree nor disagree (12%)
4 – Somewhat agree (42%)
5 – Strongly agree (40%)
82% of sampled editors who participated in this question reported that they agree or strongly agree with the following statement: "When any Wikimedia organization partners with external organizations like universities, museums or technology companies it helps us further our free content mission." 15% of those who answered the question selected "no opinion"


Question 286.03 (PR14)[edit]

To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following:
When any Wikimedia organization partners with external organizations like universities, museums or technology companies…- ...it strengthens offline communities.


Median = 4

26% selected "No opinion" [?]


1 – Strongly disagree (3%)
2 – Somewhat disagree (6%)
3 – Neither agree nor disagree (23%)
4 – Somewhat agree (38%)
5 – Strongly agree (31%)
79% of sampled editors who participated in this question reported that they agree or strongly agree with the following statement: "When any Wikimedia organization partners with external organizations like universities, museums or technology companies it strengthens offline communities." 26% of those who answered the question selected "no opinion"


Question 286.04 (PR14)[edit]

To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following:
When any Wikimedia organization partners with external organizations like universities, museums or technology companies… - ...it creates conflicts of interest in our community.


Mean = 2.64

26% selected "No opinion" [?]


1 – Strongly disagree (18%)
2 – Somewhat disagree (31%)
3 – Neither agree nor disagree (30%)
4 – Somewhat agree (12%)
5 – Strongly agree (9%)
17% of sampled editors who participated in this question reported that they agree or strongly agree with the following statement: "When any Wikimedia organization partners with external organizations like universities, museums or technology companies it creates conflicts of interest in our community." 26% of those who answered the question selected "no opinion".



Question 287.01 (PR15)[edit]

To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following:
GLAM-wiki helps diversify our content and community


Mean = 3.73

63% selected "No opinion" [?]


1 – Strongly disagree (4%)
2 – Disagree (3%)
3 – Neither agree nor disagree (30%)
4 – Agree (44%)
5 – Strongly agree (20%)
64% of sampled editors who participated in this question reported that they agree or strongly agree with the following statement: "GLAM-wiki helps diversify our content and community." 63% of those who answered the question selected "no opinion"


Question 287.02 (PR15)[edit]

To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following:
GLAM-wiki provides needed illustrations, video and other media to contextualize Wikimedia projects


Median = 4

62% selected "No opinion" [?]


1 – Strongly disagree (4%)
2 – Disagree (4%)
3 – Neither agree nor disagree (25%)
4 – Agree (36%)
5 – Strongly agree (31%)
67% of sampled editors who participated in this question reported that they agree or strongly agree with the following statement: "GLAM-wiki helps diversify our content and community." 62% of those who answered the question selected "no opinion"


Question 287.03 (PR15)[edit]

To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following:
GLAM-wiki brings needed experts to help us fill knowledge gaps


Mean = 3.5

63% selected "No opinion" [?]


1 – Strongly disagree (6%)
2 – Disagree (9%)
3 – Neither agree nor disagree (33%)
4 – Agree (34%)
5 – Strongly agree (18%)
52% of sampled editors who participated in this question reported that they agree or strongly agree with the following statement: "GLAM-wiki brings needed experts to help us fill knowledge gaps." 63% of those who answered the question selected "no opinion"


Question 287.04 (PR15)[edit]

To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following:

GLAM-wiki creates special interest groups that damage the community

Mean = 2.59

64% selected "No opinion" [?]


1 – Strongly disagree (16%)
2 – Disagree (32%)
3 – Neither agree nor disagree (38%)
4 – Agree (6%)
5 – Strongly agree (8%)
14% of sampled editors who participated in this question reported that they agree or strongly agree with the following statement: "GLAM-wiki creates special interest groups that damage the community." 64% of those who answered the question selected "no opinion"


Program leaders[edit]

Question 316 (PR21)[edit]

If a other mission aligned organization (e.g. Library, University, etc.) approached you today about getting involved with Wikimedia, which of the following would you feel confident explaining: (select all that apply)

Participants could select more than one option

3% did not select an option [?]


1 – Edit-a-thons (82%)
2 – Editing Workshops (83%)
3 – Conferences (74%)
4 – Wikipedia Education Programs (63%)
5 – GLAM Content Donations (62%)
6 – Wiki Loves Monuments (62%)
7 – On-wiki Writing Contests (58%)
8 – Other Photo Events (49%)
9 – Wikipedian-in-Residences (58%)
10 – Hack-a-thons (30%)
11 – Other (specify): (6%)
12 – Wiki Loves Earth (44%)
13 – Research Project (26%)
14 – WikiExpeditions (31%)
15 – WikiTakes (34%)
16 – None (0%)
'


Question 317 (PR22)[edit]

I would like to gain more skills or knowledge in order to implement the following: (select all that apply)

Participants could select more than one option

18% did not select an option [?]


1 – Running a content-gap campaign like Art+Feminism, Wiki Loves Women, or Wiki Loves Africa (37%)
2 – Documenting local culture through Wiki Loves or Wiki Takes Events- like Wiki Loves Monuments, or Wiki Takes Barcelona (46%)
3 – Teaching copyright on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects (41%)
4 – Educating patrons about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects and how they can contribute to the institution’s mission. (50%)
5 – Donating content for use on the projects (45%)
6 – Participating in Wikidata (46%)
'


Question 337 (PR23)[edit]

In the next 12 months, I would like to get more involved with (select all that apply)

Participants could select more than one option

13% did not select an option [?]


1 – Edit-a-thons (47%)
2 – Training of GLAM staff or volunteers (41%)
3 – Training of other experts, such as academics or researchers. (50%)
4 – Content uploads to Wikimedia Commons (54%)
5 – Wikidata contribution from a partner (40%)
6 – Outreach related to Free and Open Copyright (45%)
7 – Support of Education Program assignments in universities (46%)
8 – Support of Education Program activities at another level (42%)
9 – Photography campaigns (like Wiki-Loves Monuments) (44%)
10 – Communications or outreach campaigns (36%)
11 – Wikipedian in Residence positions (38%)
12 – Other partnerships or outreach projects (please describe) (8%)


Question links[edit]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement_Insights/2016-17_Report/Programs
meta.wikimedia.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2022-40
220704
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:J7WZDCVVYYAOPF5NTISWWDTGIM26L6G5
<urn:uuid:38d3248d-54f6-4bd8-af3b-9314be1198e9>
2022-10-02T16:32:18Z
208.80.154.224
text/html
sha1:YKE3QOVV473SOQN5IJS4DQAKGWAJUCUY
<urn:uuid:cc3f43c3-1401-4493-82cf-fbacfc6335be>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement_Insights/2016-17_Report/Programs
response
<urn:uuid:704bfae6-244c-4701-afbe-2cedc356e343>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2022-40
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for September/October 2022
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-215
software: Apache Nutch 1.19 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.4-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/