Re: [Wiki-research-l] this month's research newsletter

2014-07-01 Thread h 
The tone of the sentence in question

'it is disappointing that the main purpose appears to be completing a
thesis, with little thought to actually improving Wikipedia'

could have been written as

'It would be more useful for the Wikipedia community of practice if the
author discussed or even spelled out the implications of the research for
improving Wikipedia".

This suggestion is based on my own impression that [Wiki-research-l]
has mainly two groups of readers: community of practice and community of
knowledge. It is okay to have some group tensions for creative/critical
inputs. Still, a neutral tone is better for assessment, and an encouraging
tone might work a bit better to encourage others to fill the *gaps* (both
practice and knowledge ones).

Also, the factors such as originally intended audience and word limits
may determine how much a writer can do for *due weight* (similar to
[[WP:due]]). If the original (academic) author failed to address the
implications for practices satisfactory, a research newsletter contributor
can point out what s/he thinks the potential/actual implications are. (My
thanks to the research newsletter's voluntary contributors for their unpaid
work!)

While I understand that the monthly research newsletter has its own
perspective and interests different from academic newsletters, it does not
sacrifice the integrity of the newsletter to be gentle and specific. I
would recommend a minor edit to the sentence as the the newsletter could be
read by any one in the world, not just the Wikipedians. It is
public/published for all readers, and thus please do not assume the readers
know the context of Wikipedia research.

Best,

han-teng liao


2014-07-01 19:37 GMT+07:00 Heather Ford :

> Thanks so much for the newsletter [1]! Always a great read...
>
> But have to just say that comments like this: 'it is disappointing that
> the main purpose appears to be completing a thesis, with little thought
> to actually improving Wikipedia' [2] are really harsh and a little unfair.
> The student is studying Wikipedia - they can hardly only be interested in
> completing their thesis. We need to remember that researchers are at very
> different stages of their careers, they have very different motivations,
> and different levels of engagement with the Wikipedia community, but that
> *all* research on Wikipedia contributes to our understanding (even if as a
> catalyst for improvements). We want to encourage more research on
> Wikipedia, not attack the motivations of people we know little about -
> particularly when they're just students and particularly when this
> newsletter is on housed on Wikimedia Foundation's domain.
>
> Best,
> Heather.
>
> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2014/June
> [2]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2014/June#.22Recommending_reference_materials_in_context_to_facilitate_editing_Wikipedia.22
>
> Heather Ford
> Oxford Internet Institute  Doctoral Programme
> EthnographyMatters  | Oxford Digital
> Ethnography Group 
> http://hblog.org | @hfordsa 
>
>
> ___
> 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] this month's research newsletter

2014-07-01 Thread Joe Corneli 

Federico Leva (Nemo)  writes:

> Heather Ford, 01/07/2014 14:37:
>> We want to encourage more research on Wikipedia, not attack the
>> motivations of people we know little about
>
> I'm not sure about the specific wording, but I think the intention is
> only to stress the importance of open access/open source/open data in
> research on Wikimedia projects and wikis. I think it's fair for a
> Wikimedia community publication to call "disappointing" a closed source,
> non-replicable experiment.

Why should we infer that the experiment is not replicable?  Open source
software isn't a requirement for that.  At the same time, given that the
review finds the comparison to Wikipedia "misleading", why should we
assume that open source tools would convey any benefit to their putative
Wikipedian users?  If however the research is sufficiently interesting
that the reviewer would like to have a look at the software, wouldn't it
be polite to ask the person for a copy, rather than give them a negative
review because they (for whatever reasons) didn't already release the
software?  Maybe they had a good reason for that - if not, they might be
happy to share if asked.

From the review:

> this reviewer was unable to locate any proof that the developer
> engaged the Wikipedia community

It's possible that they might have had a good reason for that, too.  It
probably doesn't make their research less valid *as research* although
it would make some claims weaker -- and/or call for further research, as
studies usually do.  Again, if it's of genuine interest, the interested
party just might have to do the good old fashioned thing and ring up the
author, thereby rendering them *part* of a community, rather than
alienating them since they didn't happen to call first.

___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] this month's research newsletter

2014-07-01 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo) 
Heather Ford, 01/07/2014 14:37:
> We want to encourage more research on Wikipedia, not attack the
> motivations of people we know little about

I'm not sure about the specific wording, but I think the intention is
only to stress the importance of open access/open source/open data in
research on Wikimedia projects and wikis. I think it's fair for a
Wikimedia community publication to call "disappointing" a closed source,
non-replicable experiment.

Nemo

___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

[Wiki-research-l] this month's research newsletter

2014-07-01 Thread Heather Ford 
Thanks so much for the newsletter [1]! Always a great read...

But have to just say that comments like this: 'it is disappointing that the
main purpose appears to be completing a thesis, with little thought to
actually improving Wikipedia' [2] are really harsh and a little unfair. The
student is studying Wikipedia - they can hardly only be interested in
completing their thesis. We need to remember that researchers are at very
different stages of their careers, they have very different motivations,
and different levels of engagement with the Wikipedia community, but that
*all* research on Wikipedia contributes to our understanding (even if as a
catalyst for improvements). We want to encourage more research on
Wikipedia, not attack the motivations of people we know little about -
particularly when they're just students and particularly when this
newsletter is on housed on Wikimedia Foundation's domain.

Best,
Heather.

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2014/June
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2014/June#.22Recommending_reference_materials_in_context_to_facilitate_editing_Wikipedia.22

Heather Ford
Oxford Internet Institute  Doctoral Programme
EthnographyMatters  | Oxford Digital
Ethnography Group 
http://hblog.org | @hfordsa 
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l