MOSIP Wiki Landing Page Revision

[svahsek]

MOSIP Wiki Landing Page Revision

• https://mosip.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/Community/pages/2616328259/Wiki+Content+Update+-+MOSIP

[svahsek]

Observations:

Wiki Page – Pitch Strategy: Gaps & Suggestions

---

1. Lead with Impact, Not Description

Our intro currently describes what MOSIP is — a platform description. I think we should open instead with what MOSIP does in the world: countries deployed, citizens served, the problem we're solving at scale. We have a far more compelling story than most open-source projects — sovereign digital identity for billions — but it's not on this page at all. The opening should lead with that why it matters statement, not a product summary.

---

2. Establish Credibility Before Asking for Anything

Right now, a visitor arriving cold has no reason to trust the project before we ask them to fill out a form or submit a PR. I feel we should front-load proof points near the top — contributor count, countries deployed, governments live on MOSIP — so the ask feels earned, not presumptuous.

---

3. State the Value Exchange Explicitly — and Early

We do have the Contributor Journey table (bounties, leaderboard, committee access) which answers "what do I get?" — but it's buried at the bottom with a note asking if it can be moved. I think it should come near the top as a pitch element. People decide whether to invest their time based on what they'll get out of it; we should answer that question early, not as a footnote.

---

4. One Clear Primary CTA, Not Several Competing Ones

I counted at least four different entry points on the current page — GitHub tickets, the Getting Started Guide, a form, and GitHub Projects. I think this creates decision paralysis for a new visitor. We should pick one primary CTA for someone arriving cold and make everything else secondary to that.

---

5. Segment the Audience Early

We mention different contributor types — coder, designer, documenter, tester — in a single line, but then give everyone the same journey. I'd like us to fork the reader early: "Are you a developer? A documenter? A designer?" and route them to paths relevant to their skills. A documentor and a backend developer have completely different onboarding needs and shouldn't be reading the same steps.

---

6. Mission-Driven Language in the Opening, Not Process-Driven

The page currently jumps into sprints, PRs, and branching strategy before the reader has any emotional connection to what we're building. The line "Let's Build an Open, Inclusive Digital Identity Ecosystem" is actually the right opener — it just happens to be sitting at the very bottom right now. I'd move it to the top and use it to set the tone before we get into any process.

---

7. Show the Community, Don't Just Describe It

We mention "weekly calls" and a "forum" but give no sense of who's already there or how active it is. I think we should make the community visible — contributor stats, a few real names or quotes, or even just an activity signal like "X contributors active this month." Right now we're telling people the community exists; we should be showing it.

---

8. The Incomplete "Ways You Can Contribute" Section

"Ways You Can Contribute" currently has a heading and no content. Anyone who scrolls to the bottom sees an unfinished page, which is a trust-breaker — it signals the project may be disorganised. This needs to be filled in before we publish.

---

Priority Order

Priority	Action
1	Rewrite the opening 2–3 paragraphs as a mission pitch with real impact numbers
2	Move the Contributor Journey / value exchange section near the top
3	Add social proof (deployment stats, contributor count, countries, etc.)
4	Consolidate CTAs — one primary, one secondary
5	Add audience segmentation (coder / documenter / designer paths)
6	Fill in "Ways You Can Contribute"
7	Move the closing tagline ("Let's Build…") to the opening