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

[Kerry Raymond]

Having had a work role oversighting many university researchers including PHD 
and other research students, I think many start out with intentions to engage 
fully with stakeholders and contribute back into the real world in some way, 
but it's fair to say that deadline pressures tend to force them to focus their 
energies into the "academically valued" outcomes, e.g. published papers, 
theses, etc. This is just as true for Wikipedia-related research as for, say, 
aquaculture. Of course, some never intended to contribute back, but are solely 
motivated by climbing the greasy pole of academia.

Because data gathering can be a time-consuming or expensive stumbling block in 
a research plan, organisations that freely publish detailed data  (as WMF does) 
are natural magnets to researchers who can use that data to study various 
phenomena which may have broader relevance than just Wikipedia or where the 
Wikipedia data serves as a ground truth for other experiments or as proxy for 
other unavailable data. For example, you can use Wikipedia to study 
categorisation or named entity extraction without having real interest in 
Wikipedia itself.

So I think it is for those who are passionate about Wikipedia itself to see how 
such research findings may be used to improve Wikipedia. As for releasing 
source code, it has to recognised that software in research projects is often 
very quick-and-dirty and probably not designed to be integrated into the 
MediaWiki code base. Effective solutions to Wikipedia issues often require a 
mix of technology and change to community process/culture (which is often far 
harder to get right).

This is not to say they we should not encourage researchers to "give back", but 
I think we do need to understand that the reasons people don't give back aren't 
always attributable solely to "bad faith".

In additions to suggestions already made re awards, just having a letter of 
commendation on WMF letterhead acknowledging the research and its potential to 
improve Wikipedia would be a useful thing especially for junior researchers 
seeking to establish themselves; this kind of external validation is helpful to 
their CVs. This could be sent to any researchers whose research was deemed to 
have merit with different wording for those who made (according to some 
appropriately-appointed group) greater or lesser contributions to real 
Wikipedia impact. 

Sent from my iPad

> On 3 Jul 2014, at 12:15 am, Aaron Halfaker  wrote:
> 
> Given that it seems we agree with Poitr's desire for research about Wikipedia 
> to lead to useful tools an insights that can be directly applied to making 
> Wikipedia and other wikis better, what might be a more effective strategy for 
> encouraging researchers to engage with us or at least release their work in 
> forms that we can more easily work with?
> 
> Here's a couple of half-baked ideas:
> Wiki research impact task force -- contacts authors to encourage them to 
> release code/datasets/etc. and praise them publicly when they do -- could be 
> part of the work of newsletter reviewers.  There are many researchers on this 
> list who work directly with Wikimedians to make sure that their research has 
> direct impact and their awesomeness is worth our appreciation and public 
> recognition.
> Yearly research award -- for the most directly impactful research 
> projects/researchers similar to 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_France_Research_Award.  
> One of the focuses of the judging could be the direct impact that the work 
> has had.
> -Aaron
> 
> 
>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Heather Ford  wrote:
>> Apologies. You're right, Han-Teng. The reviewer looks to be Piotr Konieczny 
>> who I think is on this mailing list? 
>> 
>> Heather Ford 
>> Oxford Internet Institute Doctoral Programme 
>> EthnographyMatters | Oxford Digital Ethnography Group 
>> http://hblog.org | @hfordsa
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 2 July 2014 12:58, h  wrote:
>>> Heather, I am not sure who contribute that. Probably not Nemo. If this 
>>> issue of newsletter is correctly attributed, the contributors include: Taha 
>>> Yasseri, Maximilian Klein, Piotr Konieczny, Kim Osman, and Tilman Bayer. My 
>>> suggestion is only a personal one, and I am not sure if it is against 
>>> policies to make a few edits once the newsletter is out. 
>>> 
>>> Thanks again to the contributors of the newsletter, my life is a bit easier 
>>> and more interesting because of your work.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 2014-07-02 15:35 GMT+07:00 Heather Ford :
>>> 
 +1 Thanks for your really thoughtful comments, Joe, Han-Teng. 
 
 Nemo, would you be willing to add a note to the review and/or contacting 
 the researcher?
 
 Best,
 Heather.
 
 Heather Ford 
 Oxford Internet Institute Doctoral Programme 
 EthnographyMatters | Oxford Digital Ethnography Group 
 http://hblog.org | @hfordsa
 
 
 
 
 
> On 2 July 2014 05:17, h  wrote:
> Th

Re: [Wiki-research-l] wikis vs. CSCW

[h]

As computing goes “collaborative and social” [1], the 2012 ACM Computing
Classification System (CCS) [2] has made a few modifications that put CSCW
under the umbrella called "Collaborative and social computing", along with
other social media, blogs, wikis, etc.

Best,
han-teng liao

[1]:
http://people.oii.ox.ac.uk/hanteng/2012/10/01/computing-goes-collaborative-and-social-new-terms-in-the-2012-acm-computing-classification-system-ccs/
[2]: http://www.acm.org/about/class/2012
[3]: http://dl.acm.org/ccs.cfm





2014-07-02 22:38 GMT+07:00 Carlos Castillo :

> Hi,
>
> I will go as far as saying that Wikipedia research actually changed the
> nature of the CSCW field and the CSCW conference. A few years ago an
> avalanche of Wiki-related papers arrived to the CSCW conference, which
> (in my opinion as a semi-outsider to that community) added social media
> as a major element. Indeed in recent years the conference changed name
> and now is "Computer-Supported Collaborative Work and Social Computing".
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> ChaTo (Carlos Castillo)
> http://chato.cl/ - https://linkedin.com/in/chato -
> https://twitter.com/chatox
>
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014, at 07:15 AM, Finn Årup Nielsen wrote:
> >
> > Can I ask a silly question: Is wiki research (including Wikipedia
> > research) research on computer-supported collaborative work (CSCW).
> >
> > My immediate thought was: yes of course. I do note that on Wikipedia
> > there is only a parenthetic mentioning of Wikipedia in
> > "Computer-supported cooperative work" and no mentioning of CSCW in
> > "Wiki" (but I have also heard that you shouldn't trust Wikipedia because
> > anyone can edit).
> >
> > I suppose that some wiki research could be non-CSCW research? E.g.,
> > research on named entity extraction using Wikipedia would not be called
> > CSCW.
> >
> >
> > best regards
> > Finn Årup Nielsen
> > http://www.compute.dtu.dk/~faan/
> >
> > ___
> > 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

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

[Aaron Halfaker]

Han-teng,

Could you expand on what you are imagining with these two aspects of
impact?  Also, I'd like to think that impact wouldn't be so narrow as to be
based on engagement only.  Surely, researchers can produce things that are
highly impactful without explicitly "engaging" with the volunteer
community.

-Aaron


On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:32 AM, h  wrote:

> I second Aaron's two suggestions, with a slight change of wordings of the
> first:
> (1) change "impact" to "public engagement" (potentially new users)  or
> "community engagement" (existing users)
>
> han-teng liao
>
>
> 2014-07-02 21:15 GMT+07:00 Aaron Halfaker :
>
> Given that it seems we agree with Poitr's desire for research about
>> Wikipedia to lead to useful tools an insights that can be directly applied
>> to making Wikipedia and other wikis better, what might be a more effective
>> strategy for encouraging researchers to engage with us or at least release
>> their work in forms that we can more easily work with?
>>
>> Here's a couple of half-baked ideas:
>>
>>- *Wiki research impact task force* -- contacts authors to encourage
>>them to release code/datasets/etc. and praise them publicly when they do 
>> --
>>could be part of the work of newsletter reviewers.  There are many
>>researchers on this list who work directly with Wikimedians to make sure
>>that their research has direct impact and their awesomeness is worth our
>>appreciation and public recognition.
>>- *Yearly research award* -- for the most directly impactful research
>>projects/researchers similar to
>>https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_France_Research_Award.
>> One of the focuses of the judging could be the direct impact that the 
>> work
>>has had.
>>
>> -Aaron
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Heather Ford  wrote:
>>
>>> Apologies. You're right, Han-Teng. The reviewer looks to be Piotr
>>> Konieczny who I think is on this mailing list?
>>>
>>> Heather Ford
>>> Oxford Internet Institute  Doctoral Programme
>>> EthnographyMatters  | Oxford Digital
>>> Ethnography Group 
>>> http://hblog.org | @hfordsa 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2 July 2014 12:58, h  wrote:
>>>
 Heather, I am not sure who contribute that. Probably not Nemo. If this
 issue of newsletter is correctly attributed, the contributors include: Taha
 Yasseri, Maximilian Klein, Piotr Konieczny, Kim Osman, and Tilman Bayer. My
 suggestion is only a personal one, and I am not sure if it is against
 policies to make a few edits once the newsletter is out.

 Thanks again to the contributors of the newsletter, my life is a bit
 easier and more interesting because of your work.



 2014-07-02 15:35 GMT+07:00 Heather Ford :

 +1 Thanks for your really thoughtful comments, Joe, Han-Teng.
>
> Nemo, would you be willing to add a note to the review and/or
> contacting the researcher?
>
> Best,
> Heather.
>
> Heather Ford
> Oxford Internet Institute  Doctoral
> Programme
> EthnographyMatters  | Oxford Digital
> Ethnography Group 
> http://hblog.org | @hfordsa 
>
>
>
>
> On 2 July 2014 05:17, h  wrote:
>
>> 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

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

[h]

I second Aaron's two suggestions, with a slight change of wordings of the
first:
(1) change "impact" to "public engagement" (potentially new users)  or
"community engagement" (existing users)

han-teng liao


2014-07-02 21:15 GMT+07:00 Aaron Halfaker :

> Given that it seems we agree with Poitr's desire for research about
> Wikipedia to lead to useful tools an insights that can be directly applied
> to making Wikipedia and other wikis better, what might be a more effective
> strategy for encouraging researchers to engage with us or at least release
> their work in forms that we can more easily work with?
>
> Here's a couple of half-baked ideas:
>
>- *Wiki research impact task force* -- contacts authors to encourage
>them to release code/datasets/etc. and praise them publicly when they do --
>could be part of the work of newsletter reviewers.  There are many
>researchers on this list who work directly with Wikimedians to make sure
>that their research has direct impact and their awesomeness is worth our
>appreciation and public recognition.
>- *Yearly research award* -- for the most directly impactful research
>projects/researchers similar to
>https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_France_Research_Award.
> One of the focuses of the judging could be the direct impact that the work
>has had.
>
> -Aaron
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Heather Ford  wrote:
>
>> Apologies. You're right, Han-Teng. The reviewer looks to be Piotr
>> Konieczny who I think is on this mailing list?
>>
>> Heather Ford
>> Oxford Internet Institute  Doctoral Programme
>> EthnographyMatters  | Oxford Digital
>> Ethnography Group 
>> http://hblog.org | @hfordsa 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2 July 2014 12:58, h  wrote:
>>
>>> Heather, I am not sure who contribute that. Probably not Nemo. If this
>>> issue of newsletter is correctly attributed, the contributors include: Taha
>>> Yasseri, Maximilian Klein, Piotr Konieczny, Kim Osman, and Tilman Bayer. My
>>> suggestion is only a personal one, and I am not sure if it is against
>>> policies to make a few edits once the newsletter is out.
>>>
>>> Thanks again to the contributors of the newsletter, my life is a bit
>>> easier and more interesting because of your work.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2014-07-02 15:35 GMT+07:00 Heather Ford :
>>>
>>> +1 Thanks for your really thoughtful comments, Joe, Han-Teng.

 Nemo, would you be willing to add a note to the review and/or
 contacting the researcher?

 Best,
 Heather.

 Heather Ford
 Oxford Internet Institute  Doctoral Programme
 EthnographyMatters  | Oxford Digital
 Ethnography Group 
 http://hblog.org | @hfordsa 




 On 2 July 2014 05:17, h  wrote:

> 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
>
>

Re: [Wiki-research-l] wikis vs. CSCW

[Carlos Castillo]

Hi,

I will go as far as saying that Wikipedia research actually changed the
nature of the CSCW field and the CSCW conference. A few years ago an
avalanche of Wiki-related papers arrived to the CSCW conference, which
(in my opinion as a semi-outsider to that community) added social media
as a major element. Indeed in recent years the conference changed name
and now is "Computer-Supported Collaborative Work and Social Computing".

Cheers,

-- 
ChaTo (Carlos Castillo)
http://chato.cl/ - https://linkedin.com/in/chato -
https://twitter.com/chatox

On Wed, Jul 2, 2014, at 07:15 AM, Finn Årup Nielsen wrote:
> 
> Can I ask a silly question: Is wiki research (including Wikipedia 
> research) research on computer-supported collaborative work (CSCW).
> 
> My immediate thought was: yes of course. I do note that on Wikipedia 
> there is only a parenthetic mentioning of Wikipedia in 
> "Computer-supported cooperative work" and no mentioning of CSCW in 
> "Wiki" (but I have also heard that you shouldn't trust Wikipedia because 
> anyone can edit).
> 
> I suppose that some wiki research could be non-CSCW research? E.g., 
> research on named entity extraction using Wikipedia would not be called 
> CSCW.
> 
> 
> best regards
> Finn Årup Nielsen
> http://www.compute.dtu.dk/~faan/
> 
> ___
> 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] wikis vs. CSCW

[Aaron Halfaker]

> Is wiki research (including Wikipedia research) research on
computer-supported collaborative work (CSCW).

Sure.  A lot of it.  If it's research of the nature of wikis, then
certainly.   A lot of papers that study Wikipedia/wikis are published via
ACM CSCW[1].

If it's research that just so happens to use Wikipedia as a dataset, then I
don't know if we should even call it Wikipedia research.  Some research of
the content and work patterns in Wikipedia is a mixture of the two.  For
example, an analysis of the content in Wikipedia might be useful for
identifying bias and missing information -- even if that was not original
intention of the study and identifying bias and missing information is
purely used to tune some content algorithm.

1. http://cscw.acm.org


On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Finn Årup Nielsen  wrote:

>
> Can I ask a silly question: Is wiki research (including Wikipedia
> research) research on computer-supported collaborative work (CSCW).
>
> My immediate thought was: yes of course. I do note that on Wikipedia there
> is only a parenthetic mentioning of Wikipedia in "Computer-supported
> cooperative work" and no mentioning of CSCW in "Wiki" (but I have also
> heard that you shouldn't trust Wikipedia because anyone can edit).
>
> I suppose that some wiki research could be non-CSCW research? E.g.,
> research on named entity extraction using Wikipedia would not be called
> CSCW.
>
>
> best regards
> Finn Årup Nielsen
> http://www.compute.dtu.dk/~faan/
>
> ___
> 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

[Edward Saperia]

On 2 July 2014 15:37, Oliver Keyes  wrote:

> I feel like that might be a bit short-notice - papers need to be
> submitted, reviewed or voted on, so on and so forth. But it could be lovely
> to have a 'best presentation' award for WM itself!
>

Well, we could pick from things featured in the research newsletter, for
example? How do you imagine the winner to be chosen? We can always do
something more structured for next year. But this might be a good way to
launch the idea of a research award.

Ed


> On 2 July 2014 10:33, Edward Saperia  wrote:
>
>>
>> I really like the idea of some kind of annual award.
>>>
>>
>> If someone puts it together before Wikimania, I can put it into the
>> closing ceremony?
>>
>> *Edward Saperia*
>> Conference Director Wikimania London 
>> email  • facebook
>>  • twitter
>>  • 07796955572
>> 133-135 Bethnal Green Road, E2 7DG
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 2 July 2014 10:15, Aaron Halfaker  wrote:
>>>
 Given that it seems we agree with Poitr's desire for research about
 Wikipedia to lead to useful tools an insights that can be directly applied
 to making Wikipedia and other wikis better, what might be a more effective
 strategy for encouraging researchers to engage with us or at least release
 their work in forms that we can more easily work with?

 Here's a couple of half-baked ideas:

- *Wiki research impact task force* -- contacts authors to
encourage them to release code/datasets/etc. and praise them publicly 
 when
they do -- could be part of the work of newsletter reviewers.  There are
many researchers on this list who work directly with Wikimedians to make
sure that their research has direct impact and their awesomeness is 
 worth
our appreciation and public recognition.
- *Yearly research award* -- for the most directly impactful
research projects/researchers similar to

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_France_Research_Award.
 One of the focuses of the judging could be the direct impact that the 
 work
has had.

 -Aaron


 On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Heather Ford  wrote:

> Apologies. You're right, Han-Teng. The reviewer looks to be Piotr
> Konieczny who I think is on this mailing list?
>
> Heather Ford
> Oxford Internet Institute  Doctoral
> Programme
> EthnographyMatters  | Oxford Digital
> Ethnography Group 
> http://hblog.org | @hfordsa 
>
>
>
>
> On 2 July 2014 12:58, h  wrote:
>
>> Heather, I am not sure who contribute that. Probably not Nemo. If
>> this issue of newsletter is correctly attributed, the contributors
>> include: Taha Yasseri, Maximilian Klein, Piotr Konieczny, Kim Osman, and
>> Tilman Bayer. My suggestion is only a personal one, and I am not sure if 
>> it
>> is against policies to make a few edits once the newsletter is out.
>>
>> Thanks again to the contributors of the newsletter, my life is a bit
>> easier and more interesting because of your work.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2014-07-02 15:35 GMT+07:00 Heather Ford :
>>
>> +1 Thanks for your really thoughtful comments, Joe, Han-Teng.
>>>
>>> Nemo, would you be willing to add a note to the review and/or
>>> contacting the researcher?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Heather.
>>>
>>> Heather Ford
>>> Oxford Internet Institute  Doctoral
>>> Programme
>>> EthnographyMatters  | Oxford Digital
>>> Ethnography Group
>>> 
>>> http://hblog.org | @hfordsa 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2 July 2014 05:17, h  wrote:
>>>
 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 f

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

[Oliver Keyes]

I feel like that might be a bit short-notice - papers need to be submitted,
reviewed or voted on, so on and so forth. But it could be lovely to have a
'best presentation' award for WM itself!


On 2 July 2014 10:33, Edward Saperia  wrote:

>
> I really like the idea of some kind of annual award.
>>
>
> If someone puts it together before Wikimania, I can put it into the
> closing ceremony?
>
> *Edward Saperia*
> Conference Director Wikimania London 
> email  • facebook
>  • twitter
>  • 07796955572
> 133-135 Bethnal Green Road, E2 7DG
>
>
>
>> On 2 July 2014 10:15, Aaron Halfaker  wrote:
>>
>>> Given that it seems we agree with Poitr's desire for research about
>>> Wikipedia to lead to useful tools an insights that can be directly applied
>>> to making Wikipedia and other wikis better, what might be a more effective
>>> strategy for encouraging researchers to engage with us or at least release
>>> their work in forms that we can more easily work with?
>>>
>>> Here's a couple of half-baked ideas:
>>>
>>>- *Wiki research impact task force* -- contacts authors to encourage
>>>them to release code/datasets/etc. and praise them publicly when they do 
>>> --
>>>could be part of the work of newsletter reviewers.  There are many
>>>researchers on this list who work directly with Wikimedians to make sure
>>>that their research has direct impact and their awesomeness is worth our
>>>appreciation and public recognition.
>>>- *Yearly research award* -- for the most directly impactful
>>>research projects/researchers similar to
>>>https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_France_Research_Award.
>>> One of the focuses of the judging could be the direct impact that the 
>>> work
>>>has had.
>>>
>>> -Aaron
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Heather Ford  wrote:
>>>
 Apologies. You're right, Han-Teng. The reviewer looks to be Piotr
 Konieczny who I think is on this mailing list?

 Heather Ford
 Oxford Internet Institute  Doctoral Programme
 EthnographyMatters  | Oxford Digital
 Ethnography Group 
 http://hblog.org | @hfordsa 




 On 2 July 2014 12:58, h  wrote:

> Heather, I am not sure who contribute that. Probably not Nemo. If this
> issue of newsletter is correctly attributed, the contributors include: 
> Taha
> Yasseri, Maximilian Klein, Piotr Konieczny, Kim Osman, and Tilman Bayer. 
> My
> suggestion is only a personal one, and I am not sure if it is against
> policies to make a few edits once the newsletter is out.
>
> Thanks again to the contributors of the newsletter, my life is a bit
> easier and more interesting because of your work.
>
>
>
> 2014-07-02 15:35 GMT+07:00 Heather Ford :
>
> +1 Thanks for your really thoughtful comments, Joe, Han-Teng.
>>
>> Nemo, would you be willing to add a note to the review and/or
>> contacting the researcher?
>>
>> Best,
>> Heather.
>>
>> Heather Ford
>> Oxford Internet Institute  Doctoral
>> Programme
>> EthnographyMatters  | Oxford Digital
>> Ethnography Group 
>>
>> http://hblog.org | @hfordsa 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2 July 2014 05:17, h  wrote:
>>
>>> 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/

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

[Edward Saperia]

> I really like the idea of some kind of annual award.
>

If someone puts it together before Wikimania, I can put it into the closing
ceremony?

*Edward Saperia*
Conference Director Wikimania London 
email  • facebook
 • twitter
 • 07796955572
133-135 Bethnal Green Road, E2 7DG



> On 2 July 2014 10:15, Aaron Halfaker  wrote:
>
>> Given that it seems we agree with Poitr's desire for research about
>> Wikipedia to lead to useful tools an insights that can be directly applied
>> to making Wikipedia and other wikis better, what might be a more effective
>> strategy for encouraging researchers to engage with us or at least release
>> their work in forms that we can more easily work with?
>>
>> Here's a couple of half-baked ideas:
>>
>>- *Wiki research impact task force* -- contacts authors to encourage
>>them to release code/datasets/etc. and praise them publicly when they do 
>> --
>>could be part of the work of newsletter reviewers.  There are many
>>researchers on this list who work directly with Wikimedians to make sure
>>that their research has direct impact and their awesomeness is worth our
>>appreciation and public recognition.
>>- *Yearly research award* -- for the most directly impactful research
>>projects/researchers similar to
>>https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_France_Research_Award.
>> One of the focuses of the judging could be the direct impact that the 
>> work
>>has had.
>>
>> -Aaron
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Heather Ford  wrote:
>>
>>> Apologies. You're right, Han-Teng. The reviewer looks to be Piotr
>>> Konieczny who I think is on this mailing list?
>>>
>>> Heather Ford
>>> Oxford Internet Institute  Doctoral Programme
>>> EthnographyMatters  | Oxford Digital
>>> Ethnography Group 
>>> http://hblog.org | @hfordsa 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2 July 2014 12:58, h  wrote:
>>>
 Heather, I am not sure who contribute that. Probably not Nemo. If this
 issue of newsletter is correctly attributed, the contributors include: Taha
 Yasseri, Maximilian Klein, Piotr Konieczny, Kim Osman, and Tilman Bayer. My
 suggestion is only a personal one, and I am not sure if it is against
 policies to make a few edits once the newsletter is out.

 Thanks again to the contributors of the newsletter, my life is a bit
 easier and more interesting because of your work.



 2014-07-02 15:35 GMT+07:00 Heather Ford :

 +1 Thanks for your really thoughtful comments, Joe, Han-Teng.
>
> Nemo, would you be willing to add a note to the review and/or
> contacting the researcher?
>
> Best,
> Heather.
>
> Heather Ford
> Oxford Internet Institute  Doctoral
> Programme
> EthnographyMatters  | Oxford Digital
> Ethnography Group 
> http://hblog.org | @hfordsa 
>
>
>
>
> On 2 July 2014 05:17, h  wrote:
>
>> 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
>> wo

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

[Oliver Keyes]

I really like the idea of some kind of annual award.


On 2 July 2014 10:15, Aaron Halfaker  wrote:

> Given that it seems we agree with Poitr's desire for research about
> Wikipedia to lead to useful tools an insights that can be directly applied
> to making Wikipedia and other wikis better, what might be a more effective
> strategy for encouraging researchers to engage with us or at least release
> their work in forms that we can more easily work with?
>
> Here's a couple of half-baked ideas:
>
>- *Wiki research impact task force* -- contacts authors to encourage
>them to release code/datasets/etc. and praise them publicly when they do --
>could be part of the work of newsletter reviewers.  There are many
>researchers on this list who work directly with Wikimedians to make sure
>that their research has direct impact and their awesomeness is worth our
>appreciation and public recognition.
>- *Yearly research award* -- for the most directly impactful research
>projects/researchers similar to
>https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_France_Research_Award.
> One of the focuses of the judging could be the direct impact that the work
>has had.
>
> -Aaron
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Heather Ford  wrote:
>
>> Apologies. You're right, Han-Teng. The reviewer looks to be Piotr
>> Konieczny who I think is on this mailing list?
>>
>> Heather Ford
>> Oxford Internet Institute  Doctoral Programme
>> EthnographyMatters  | Oxford Digital
>> Ethnography Group 
>> http://hblog.org | @hfordsa 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2 July 2014 12:58, h  wrote:
>>
>>> Heather, I am not sure who contribute that. Probably not Nemo. If this
>>> issue of newsletter is correctly attributed, the contributors include: Taha
>>> Yasseri, Maximilian Klein, Piotr Konieczny, Kim Osman, and Tilman Bayer. My
>>> suggestion is only a personal one, and I am not sure if it is against
>>> policies to make a few edits once the newsletter is out.
>>>
>>> Thanks again to the contributors of the newsletter, my life is a bit
>>> easier and more interesting because of your work.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2014-07-02 15:35 GMT+07:00 Heather Ford :
>>>
>>> +1 Thanks for your really thoughtful comments, Joe, Han-Teng.

 Nemo, would you be willing to add a note to the review and/or
 contacting the researcher?

 Best,
 Heather.

 Heather Ford
 Oxford Internet Institute  Doctoral Programme
 EthnographyMatters  | Oxford Digital
 Ethnography Group 
 http://hblog.org | @hfordsa 




 On 2 July 2014 05:17, h  wrote:

> 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 t

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

[Aaron Halfaker]

Given that it seems we agree with Poitr's desire for research about
Wikipedia to lead to useful tools an insights that can be directly applied
to making Wikipedia and other wikis better, what might be a more effective
strategy for encouraging researchers to engage with us or at least release
their work in forms that we can more easily work with?

Here's a couple of half-baked ideas:

   - *Wiki research impact task force* -- contacts authors to encourage
   them to release code/datasets/etc. and praise them publicly when they do --
   could be part of the work of newsletter reviewers.  There are many
   researchers on this list who work directly with Wikimedians to make sure
   that their research has direct impact and their awesomeness is worth our
   appreciation and public recognition.
   - *Yearly research award* -- for the most directly impactful research
   projects/researchers similar to
   https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_France_Research_Award.
One of the focuses of the judging could be the direct impact that the work
   has had.

-Aaron


On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Heather Ford  wrote:

> Apologies. You're right, Han-Teng. The reviewer looks to be Piotr
> Konieczny who I think is on this mailing list?
>
> Heather Ford
> Oxford Internet Institute  Doctoral Programme
> EthnographyMatters  | Oxford Digital
> Ethnography Group 
> http://hblog.org | @hfordsa 
>
>
>
>
> On 2 July 2014 12:58, h  wrote:
>
>> Heather, I am not sure who contribute that. Probably not Nemo. If this
>> issue of newsletter is correctly attributed, the contributors include: Taha
>> Yasseri, Maximilian Klein, Piotr Konieczny, Kim Osman, and Tilman Bayer. My
>> suggestion is only a personal one, and I am not sure if it is against
>> policies to make a few edits once the newsletter is out.
>>
>> Thanks again to the contributors of the newsletter, my life is a bit
>> easier and more interesting because of your work.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2014-07-02 15:35 GMT+07:00 Heather Ford :
>>
>> +1 Thanks for your really thoughtful comments, Joe, Han-Teng.
>>>
>>> Nemo, would you be willing to add a note to the review and/or contacting
>>> the researcher?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Heather.
>>>
>>> Heather Ford
>>> Oxford Internet Institute  Doctoral Programme
>>> EthnographyMatters  | Oxford Digital
>>> Ethnography Group 
>>> http://hblog.org | @hfordsa 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2 July 2014 05:17, h  wrote:
>>>
 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 Wiki

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

[Heather Ford]

Apologies. You're right, Han-Teng. The reviewer looks to be Piotr Konieczny
who I think is on this mailing list?

Heather Ford
Oxford Internet Institute  Doctoral Programme
EthnographyMatters  | Oxford Digital
Ethnography Group 
http://hblog.org | @hfordsa 




On 2 July 2014 12:58, h  wrote:

> Heather, I am not sure who contribute that. Probably not Nemo. If this
> issue of newsletter is correctly attributed, the contributors include: Taha
> Yasseri, Maximilian Klein, Piotr Konieczny, Kim Osman, and Tilman Bayer. My
> suggestion is only a personal one, and I am not sure if it is against
> policies to make a few edits once the newsletter is out.
>
> Thanks again to the contributors of the newsletter, my life is a bit
> easier and more interesting because of your work.
>
>
>
> 2014-07-02 15:35 GMT+07:00 Heather Ford :
>
> +1 Thanks for your really thoughtful comments, Joe, Han-Teng.
>>
>> Nemo, would you be willing to add a note to the review and/or contacting
>> the researcher?
>>
>> Best,
>> Heather.
>>
>> Heather Ford
>> Oxford Internet Institute  Doctoral Programme
>> EthnographyMatters  | Oxford Digital
>> Ethnography Group 
>> http://hblog.org | @hfordsa 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2 July 2014 05:17, h  wrote:
>>
>>> 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 

>>

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

[h]

Heather, I am not sure who contribute that. Probably not Nemo. If this
issue of newsletter is correctly attributed, the contributors include: Taha
Yasseri, Maximilian Klein, Piotr Konieczny, Kim Osman, and Tilman Bayer. My
suggestion is only a personal one, and I am not sure if it is against
policies to make a few edits once the newsletter is out.

Thanks again to the contributors of the newsletter, my life is a bit easier
and more interesting because of your work.



2014-07-02 15:35 GMT+07:00 Heather Ford :

> +1 Thanks for your really thoughtful comments, Joe, Han-Teng.
>
> Nemo, would you be willing to add a note to the review and/or contacting
> the researcher?
>
> Best,
> Heather.
>
> Heather Ford
> Oxford Internet Institute  Doctoral Programme
> EthnographyMatters  | Oxford Digital
> Ethnography Group 
> http://hblog.org | @hfordsa 
>
>
>
>
> On 2 July 2014 05:17, h  wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailma

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

[Heather Ford]

+1 Thanks for your really thoughtful comments, Joe, Han-Teng.

Nemo, would you be willing to add a note to the review and/or contacting
the researcher?

Best,
Heather.

Heather Ford
Oxford Internet Institute  Doctoral Programme
EthnographyMatters  | Oxford Digital
Ethnography Group 
http://hblog.org | @hfordsa 




On 2 July 2014 05:17, h  wrote:

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