Re: [Wiki-research-l] The best papers on anonymous editing
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Steven Walling swall...@wikimedia.orgwrote: On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Dario Taraborelli dtarabore...@wikimedia.org wrote: +1 but instead of having links and pointers sent off-list, let's create a public page on Meta where these papers can be listed (and maybe quickly summarized), this can turn into a useful resource for people outside of WMF. Fine idea. Give me a moment, and I will have a wiki page ready for this. :) As promised, https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Anonymous_editor_acquisition If we drop notes and discussion items on the Talk page there, we can develop a summary page of anonymous editor research further on down the road. -- Steven Walling, Product Manager https://wikimediafoundation.org/ ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] [EE] Recruiting gamers to edit Wikimedia
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:47 AM, S Page sp...@wikimedia.org wrote: Can we change the Delete operation to Move to user subpage of initial author? Delete is such an awful game over event, a big fat Insert 200 quarters and bang your head on the screen to continue. Userfying articles this way is sometimes used, and the English Wikipedia's articles for creation review system (AFC) moves pages in and out of the Wikipedia Talk namespace. Both of these strategies run in to trouble when used at scale. One idea to test in the future, which editors who work in AFC have been receptive to, is creation of a noindexed Draft namespace. This would probably help accomplish the goal you were suggesting, where articles that aren't harmful per se but which need work can simple be demoted to a draft status. -- Steven Walling https://wikimediafoundation.org/ ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Recruiting gamers to edit Wikimedia
On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Kerry Raymond kerry.raym...@gmail.comwrote: Wikicup is highly structured and targeted towards improving quality and attracts only a small number of participants. It appears to be targeting existing editors to make better quality contributions. So it’s certainly an example of gamification, but not one that’s likely to find “mass appeal” or attract/motivate new editors. ** ** I think if we are looking for “mass appeal” then I think we need to look at “casual gaming” and what makes them tick. Why do people play little short-play games? What’s the equivalent for Wikipedia? Could we create a “game” that throws up a random “citation needed” (perhaps in a particular category) and asks for a URL that supports the claim? The game would have to have other “players” checking the citation or else people would upload any old URL. Maybe it could be structured along the lines of Yahoo Answers, where the “players” get Best Answer statistics and can be on leaderboards for different categories of content. There’s a nice match here to Wikipedia since we already have categories. ** I think Kerry is on the right track here. WikiCup, the Core Contest etc. are really cool, but they're at the highest end of the quality/difficulty spectrum when it comes to motivating users. A few projects at WMF that have touched on gamification elements: 1. Mobile microcontributions. This is primarily in the planning stage, but there are variety of small, simple, repeatable things that are potentially easy to do on mobile. This fits with the mindset of mobile gaming, where people intermittently play games to pass the time on transit, waiting in line, etc. More info: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Mobile_engineering/Strategy/2013-2014_planning#Micro-Contributions 2. Our Getting Started workflow for onboarding new users. Try it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:GettingStarted One of the ideas we'll be testing next is a progress bar, which encourages users to complete learning five edits to learn each task type. Right now, we see editors use the Try another article function on the toolbar to skip around and edit multiple articles within a particular workflow, such as copyediting or adding wikilinks. There's very little stopping us from adapting this in to a perpetually available game associated with the many todo items in Wikipedia:Backlog, after we've figured out how best to apply to the new editor onboarding experience. 3. The Education Program experimented with leaderboards for students. Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Canada_Education_Program/Leaderboardoldid=487269755Based on feedback from students this was a motivator, but it needs to be tested in a controlled way for regular editors, as we know that student activity and retention follows very different patterns compared to editors not introduced to editing via a classroom assignment. This is one of those things we should test with a degree of caution, as competition is not always friendly and positive. 4. Many people have brought up the idea of hooking up Mozilla's Open Badges architecture to Wikimedia projects. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BADGE and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Badges There are probably others I'm forgetting. -- Steven Walling https://wikimediafoundation.org/ ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Reasons for editors leaving Wikipedia or becoming less active
There was a survey targeted specifically at former contributors as part of the Strategic Planning process. http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Former_Contributors_Survey_Results On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Piotr Konieczny pio...@post.pl wrote: Other than data from Wikipedia Editor Survey 2011, what has been published on this topic? Thanks, -- Piotr Konieczny, PhD http://hanyang.academia.edu/**PiotrKoniecznyhttp://hanyang.academia.edu/PiotrKonieczny http://scholar.google.com/**citations?user=gdV8_AEJhttp://scholar.google.com/citations?user=gdV8_AEJ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**User:Piotrushttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Piotrus __**_ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.**wikimedia.orgWiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wiki-**research-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l -- Steven Walling https://wikimediafoundation.org/ ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Editor retention and meetups?
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Laura Hale la...@fanhistory.com wrote: Hi, I'm wondering if anyone knows of any research on Wikimedia meetups and the effects on editor retention? Sincerely, Laura Hale I know that at some point there was effort made in the WMF's Global Development department to try and track any statistically significant increase in participation from certain geographies as a result of outreach events, but I am not sure how far it got. Making a correlation between IRL meetings and activity is difficult unless you do it by hand. And then there's the question of what you might use as a control group as a basis for comparison. -- Steven Walling https://wikimediafoundation.org/ ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki Research Journal?
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Ward Cunningham w...@c2.com wrote: Aside: I have built a data mining tool and methodology, Exploratory Parsing, that can read all of Wikipedia in 10 seconds for a useful notion of read. I have also created a Federated Wiki that promotes wiki-like sharing without need for a common vision or agreed social norms. I intend to combine the two to make an experiment manager where setups are easily shared and where methodological improvements and/or research redirections easily build on other's work in progress. What would our environment have to be like before our collaborative cycle time is reduced to days? I would highly encourage researchers interested in collaborative systems to take a look at Federated Wiki. Collaboration among experts is a very interesting potential use case, considering the way the wiki handles data and visualization, as well as the git-like way is allows for collaboration. -- Steven Walling https://wikimediafoundation.org/ ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] War of 1812 and all that
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 6:19 AM, Richard Jensen rjen...@uic.edu wrote: Look at it demographically: apart from teenage boys coming of age, the population of computer-literate people who are ignorant of Wikipedia is very small indeed in 2012. That was not true in 2005 when lots of editors joined up and did a lot of work on important articles. You seem to be disregarding the entirety of the developing world and non-English speakers in that statement. -- Steven Walling https://wikimediafoundation.org/ ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Data for Portuguese Wikipedia
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Oona Castro ocas...@wikimedia.org wrote: Dear all, we have been trying to get some data for analyses of a test in the Portuguese Wikipedia from april 12 to July 12. During this period, it's been given the option to reverters of also blocking vandals to support admins and make reverts less necessary. http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia_Discussão:Votações/Reversores_bloqueando_vândalos We haven't been able to get them so far. Would anyone have ideas on how we can get it? Or is anyone in this list able to do it? It's been almost one month since the test was finished and they wanted to discuss the results of the test in a data driven fashion, but since it's been quite a while they're about to make decisions without being able to analyse data. Does anyone can help us with this? Data required would be: Amount of reverts from January 12 to April 11 - 2012 Amount of reverts from April 12 to July 12 - 2012 Amount of reverts from January 12 to March 11 - 2011 Amount of reverts from April 12 to July 12 - 2011 Amount of edits made by reverts and admins in the same periods Amount - total edits (general) in the same periods If possible, data from 2010 would give us a better idea of this history Thank you so much! Best regards Oona To be clear for those not familiar with Portuguese Wikipedia... Here reverters (Reversores) is a user right equivalent to Rollbacker on English Wikipedia.[1] Extending the ability to block IPs and newly-registered accounts to a user group outside the small admin corps on Portuguese Wikipedia might induce some radical changes in the community dynamics. (There are only like 30-40 admins, and more than 100 rollbackers.) This topic sounds pretty interesting, not to mention important to inform community decision-making. -- Steven Walling https://wikimediafoundation.org/ 1. https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Tipos_de_usu%C3%A1rios#Reversores ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Fwd: Re: Experimental study of informal rewards in peer production
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Taha Yasseri taha.yas...@gmail.com wrote: Following the previous comment, I'm very much curious to see one of those given barnstars. Is it ensured that users are not aware of the experiment? how personalised are the awards? May be the awarded editors think their activity is being observed by some organisation, and it pretty much explains why they become more active after receiving the award! bests, .Taha There is some more detail about this study in the recent research section of The Signpost: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-04-30/Recent_research -- Steven Walling https://wikimediafoundation.org/ ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] long in tooth: what outdated looks like
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 2:41 AM, Richard Jensen rjen...@uic.edu wrote: JSTOR reports there were about 300 articles on Shakespeare a year in scholarly journals in 1997 to 2006; none of them are cited, nor any since then and only one before then. This is typical as well of political and military history. Wiki editors are not using scholarly journals. I assume that is because they are unaware of them. Not at all. Wikipedians are *very much* aware that these journals exist. They do not have access to them, because they are unaffiliated scholars. Dozens of editors want access to this content,[1] but can't have it because JSTOR locks it down. They just now started letting people access content that is in the public domain! If as an academic, you see a problem where peer reviewed content is not cited in Wikipedia, I would strongly encourage you to join the movement lobbying for openness in scholarly work. Otherwise, you're complaining about a problem that Wikipedians do not have the power to fix, because academics tacitly support a system in which knowledge is kept in the hands of the few who can pay for it. -- Steven Walling https://wikimediafoundation.org/ 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_JSTOR_access ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] long in tooth: what outdated looks like
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Steven Walling swall...@wikimedia.orgwrote: They do not have access to them, because they are unaffiliated scholars. Dozens of editors want access to this content,[1] but can't have it because JSTOR locks it down. A friend pointed out to me offlist that there is a slight error in my statement which merits correcting: JSTOR is not necessarily to blame here, since they are simply an archive, and have to fit in with how journal publishers license their content. So FWIW, the real solution probably starts with open access journals like those published by PLoS. Wikipedia could do a lot more to encourage use of the the open access content that already is available. -- Steven Walling https://wikimediafoundation.org/ ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] long in tooth: highly active editors are 1/3 fewer
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 5:03 AM, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote: The problem isn't necessarily that people are finding that they've written what they know. On EN wiki and I believe the other large communities we are no longer recruiting editors into the core of very active editors as effectively as we used to. The community appears to be coming more closed and though we are only losing a small proportion of our very active editors we are failing to recruit their replacements. I.e. the numbers of new editors have dropped somewhat, but the number of new editors who stay has dropped far more steeply. +1. Maryana Pinchuk and I here at the WMF have recently been looking at English Wikipedia editors who just made their first 1,000 edits to articles, and we've hand coded their topics of contribution: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Editor_milestones It is stunningly obvious to us from observing a couple hundred of these editors that there is: A) still *tons* to write about, and editors know it. No one is asking them to write particular articles, they're just doing it on their own. B) these editors are not (yet) part of the core governance making community for the most part One of the more interesting things is that these editors are mostly contributing to local culture, sports, media, and history about topics not related to America, the UK, Australia, etc. The traditional core community that comes from native English-speaking countries has definitely moved on in focus from creating new articles to trying to improve and expand on them. So much so that they recently tried to propose that we don't let new editors create articles until they edit a little bit (e.g. achieving autoconfirmed user rights). But from looking at this sample of very active contributors to articles, it is clear that any statement that there is nothing new to write about is simply a problem of perception, because you're asking people from Western countries who don't even see that you're missing good articles about every politician in India, every soccer club in the Bulgaria, every Chinese composer. Just as the first ten years of Wikipedia expanded on the Britannica-style concept of the encyclopedia, the next phase of English content development appears to be coming from people whose understanding of what an encyclopedia is goes way beyond covering dead white guys and textbook concepts. -- Steven Walling https://wikimediafoundation.org/ ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
[Wiki-research-l] Summary of findings from WMF Summer of Research program now available
Greetings everyone, Now that the the WMF summer research program in the Community Department has come to a close, I wanted to point interested parties to the body of findings we've produced. We covered a lot of territory so to save you the trouble if you just want to browse, we collected our most salient results into one wiki page. - Relevant blog post here: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/09/06/summer-research-findings/ - Summary of findings on Meta, with links to further documentation: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_Summer_of_Research_2011/Summary_of_Findings Next steps are twofold for this program: 1. We'll be working with the Global Development team and some volunteers from the local community to extend these analyses to cover Portuguese Wikipedia, specifically to support Global Dev's work in Brazil. 2. We're choosing and implementing a platform to release not just our code, but the datasets we compiled over the summer. You'll hear more about this soon, but we're taking our time in order to decide on a solution that will work in the long term for sharing open data beyond the dumps. Last but not least, if anyone would like to have a more in-depth discussion about these findings and the research that produced them, I'm definitely open to hosting an IRC office hours with some members of the team. Just let me know if you're interested (on or offlist) and I'll set something up soon. -- Steven Walling Fellow at Wikimedia Foundation wikimediafoundation.org ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] My data summit working groups
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 3:32 PM, David Strauss da...@davidstrauss.netwrote: Edit history in an accessible form -- create a queryable NoSQL form of data dumps I'd like to get this started ASAP. I think we can set up a bridge to synchronize directly from MediaWiki to a tool like Cassandra. It will provide a superior source for both XML dumps and analysis. See http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Editor_Trends_Study/Software for an already ongoing project very similar to this notion. ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Pew Research Report on Wikipedia
Just a reminder that Pew is exclusive to the U.S. so that's 53% of *American *adult internet users using Wikipedia. Steven Walling On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Joseph Reagle joseph.2...@reagle.orgwrote: On Thursday, January 13, 2011, phoebe ayers wrote: Wikipedia, past and present http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/Wikipedia.aspx Given how much Google juice WP has, I find it unintuitive that only 53% of adult internet users use Wikipedia to look for information. I thought this low number is perhaps people thinking this means they type the query into Wikipedia itself. Pew is always thorough, so looking for the questions I see [1] and infer the question was: Thinking about your internet use overall... Please tell me if you ever use the internet to do any of the following things. Do you ever use the internet to [Look for information on Wikipedia] ? / Did you happen to do this yesterday, or not? ...? [1]: http://pewinternet.org/Shared-Content/Data-Sets/2010/May-2010--Cell-Phones.aspx ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] ProveIt - Wikipedia references made easy
This is fantastic! I'm going to be trying it out more, but here are two pieces of immediate feedback: 1. It would be great to have the list of references indicate in some way how many times a particular reference is used. The highlighting is great, but you would still have to scroll through an article and count the number of times it is used to get an overview. One of the most confusing things about using references heavily is editing a reference once it is used repetitively (typically via the ref name=Name function). 2. Distinguishing between footnotes (see: Wikipedia:Citing Sources#Foonotes) and references felt a tad rough. It clearly marked out the bare ref tags (i.e. the icon), but in large and high quality articles, especially Featured Articles, the separation between footnoted citations and references becomes quite important. Demo the sheep article for an example of what I'm talking about. Kudos on a useful project, Steven Walling On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Kurt Luther lut...@cc.gatech.edu wrote: Hi all, We at Georgia Tech are happy to announce the release of ProveIt, our free, open source tool for finding, editing, adding, and citing references on Wikipedia. You can try out, install, or learn more about ProveIt here: http://proveit.cc.gatech.edu/ You may have seen our demo of an early version of ProveIt at WikiSym 2009, but this release is much improved on a number of fronts: * greatly improved user interface and feature set * as a Wikipedia user script, it shows up whenever you log in to Wikipedia -- install once, use forever! * works in most browsers, including Firefox, Chrome, Internet Explorer, Safari, and Opera * updates instantly and automatically This release represents nearly two years of development by the ProveIt team -- congrats to all involved: Amy Bruckman, Matt Flaschen, Andrea Forte, Terris Johnson, and Chris Jordan. Please give ProveIt a try and give us your feedback! We are excited to hear what you think and to respond to bug reports promptly. You can file a bug report at http://proveit.cc.gatech.edu/users/bugreport or email the team at prov...@cc.gatech.edu . If you are an OSS developer, please also check out our Google Code project at http://code.google.com/p/proveit-js/ -- we hope to start building a sustainable community around ProveIt. Thanks so much for considering it! -- Kurt and the ProveIt team -- Kurt Luther, Ph.D. Candidate School of Interactive Computing Georgia Institute of Technology http://www.kurtluther.com/ Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat. -- Theodore Roosevelt ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Foundation-l] Anti-vandalism bot census
-- Forwarded message -- From: emijrp emi...@gmail.com Date: Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 5:35 AM Subject: [Foundation-l] Anti-vandalism bot census To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org, Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org Hi all; I'm creating a census[1] with all the anti-vandalism bots in the Wikimedia projects history. I want to research the features and techniques used in all these past years. I need your help for compiling all the nicks of those bots. You can help adding info to the page, but if you don't have free time for that, write only the nickname and I will retrieve all the available info about the bot. With the currently available information, I have found two main categories of anti-vandalism bots: * First generation: simple scoring systems based in regular expressions and heuristics. * Second generation: machine learning, neural networks and bayesian filters. Have you got suggestions to this classification? What is your opinion about the past and the future of anti-vandalism bots? Can FlaggedRevs and similar approaches make these bots useless? Thanks, emijrp [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Emijrp/Anti-vandalism_bot_census#Census ___ foundation-l mailing list foundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wikipedia Article Editing History
HI Laura, There is no publicly-accessible tool that provides the IP address/location of logged in users of Wikimedia projects. The CheckUser extension can provide the IPs used by any user account, but it is only used for a *very*narrow set of purposes as part of Wikimedia's privacy policy. Steven Walling On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Laura Hale la...@fanhistory.com wrote: Hi, I'm looking to find out if a tool exists that does the following: 1. Gets the history of selected articles. 2. Determines the geographic location of IP address edits. 3. Determines the geographic location of logged in user edits. I'm interested in this as my research focuses on Australian sport. I'd like to determine if edits are coming from fans of the sport, fans of the league, fans of specific teams. I can probably get some one to build me a tool that does what I want but I'd rather not reinvent the wheel if it already exists. Sincerely, Laura Hale -- twitter: purplepopple blog: ozziesport.com ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] New research project
Thanks for the feedback and resources all. Links to relevant research and suggestions for editing the draft taxonomy have both been extremely helpful. To answer emijrp: While we are interested in getting a better picture of who the most active Wikimedians are using these metrics, we don't see the results being something like say, the current lists of Wikimedians by number of edits. At this point we haven't considered there to be a need to rank or weigh different activities to different degrees. We simply want to make sure that we can get a more comprehensive map of the roles volunteers can take. Steven Walling On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 4:18 AM, emijrp emi...@gmail.com wrote: Hi; It is an interesting topic, but also, I think that a difficult one. It is said that editcount is not the real value of an user. It is correct, but, how do you compare the value of different actions like editing a page, fixing a typo, adding a paragraph, converting a png diagram to svg, taking a pic, developing a bot, ect? There is no a comparison table. I can help with the tech side of this task, if help is needed. Regards, emijrp 2010/8/12 Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com Hi all, I'm Steven Walling, a longtime Wikimedia volunteer. Damian Finol (also a longtime volunteer) and I are working on the beginnings of a new research project in cooperation with the Foundation's Community Department. Everyone knows that editors are publicly listed based on edit count, and some other details are visible related to the type of contributions an individual user makes. The goal of this project is to try and highlight highly active volunteers who may not participate in tasks that produce a high edit count. By creating a detailed taxonomy of sorts for all the different roles users can take in a project, we hope to get a better picture of who the most active contributors are and what they are doing. If anyone has done similar roles-based investigations into volunteer participation or has any suggestions at all, please feel free to contact us at feedb...@wikimedia.org.ve or via the project's page on Meta at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Contribution_Taxonomy_Project Thanks, Steven Walling http://enwp.org/User:Steven_Walling ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
