Re: [Wiki-research-l] StackExchange editor decline (serverfault)
*We don’t want our best contributors feeling like the most important contribution they can make is to find stuff to get rid of - and more importantly, we want to avoid deterring people from joining the community and participating by being over-protective of what we want the site to look like. Narrow interpretation of the scope with rigid enforcement hasn’t slowed the volume of poor quality questions, but it has given Server Fault a rather hostile and insular reputation and a tendency to give a poor first impression.* The parallels to English Wikipedia are startling. But the data shared here don't say much to support the Facebook Ate My Online Community argument. Shane Madden's thesis is that community dynamics, not social media overload, are the primary culprit. Recommended reading for the whole research-l list. Thanks for sharing this, Nemo. - Jonathan On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 3:21 AM, Ed Summers e...@pobox.com wrote: That’s really interesting. One could speculate that there is a general fall off in interactivity on other sites as social media behemoth’s like Facebook soak up user attention. I know Matt Haughey has written about the fall off in site visits to Metafilter [1], which he has attributed to changes in Google’s relevancy ranking. I wonder if folks at Metafilter would be willing to look at user engagement over time in relation to Wikipedia’s stats? //Ed [1] https://medium.com/technology-musings/on-the-future-of-metafilter-941d15ec96f0 On Dec 11, 2014, at 4:57 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: Curious discussion about an editor/activity decline at serverfault: http://meta.serverfault.com/questions/6701/server-fault-needs-professional-quality-questions-not-just-questions-from-profe Feels a lot like 2009 discussions about Wikipedia in 2007/2008: ballooning visits, editors focusing on rollback, sadness spreading, less work getting done. It seems however that every community and research about community is going through the same issues and errors? Someone please give them pointers to useful research, or something. :) Nemo ___ 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 -- Jonathan T. Morgan Community Research Lead Wikimedia Foundation User:Jmorgan (WMF) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF) jmor...@wikimedia.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] StackExchange editor decline (serverfault)
Thanks indeed Nemo -- Anybody have any contacts there we could talk to? -Toby On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Jonathan Morgan jmor...@wikimedia.org wrote: *We don’t want our best contributors feeling like the most important contribution they can make is to find stuff to get rid of - and more importantly, we want to avoid deterring people from joining the community and participating by being over-protective of what we want the site to look like. Narrow interpretation of the scope with rigid enforcement hasn’t slowed the volume of poor quality questions, but it has given Server Fault a rather hostile and insular reputation and a tendency to give a poor first impression.* The parallels to English Wikipedia are startling. But the data shared here don't say much to support the Facebook Ate My Online Community argument. Shane Madden's thesis is that community dynamics, not social media overload, are the primary culprit. Recommended reading for the whole research-l list. Thanks for sharing this, Nemo. - Jonathan On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 3:21 AM, Ed Summers e...@pobox.com wrote: That’s really interesting. One could speculate that there is a general fall off in interactivity on other sites as social media behemoth’s like Facebook soak up user attention. I know Matt Haughey has written about the fall off in site visits to Metafilter [1], which he has attributed to changes in Google’s relevancy ranking. I wonder if folks at Metafilter would be willing to look at user engagement over time in relation to Wikipedia’s stats? //Ed [1] https://medium.com/technology-musings/on-the-future-of-metafilter-941d15ec96f0 On Dec 11, 2014, at 4:57 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: Curious discussion about an editor/activity decline at serverfault: http://meta.serverfault.com/questions/6701/server-fault-needs-professional-quality-questions-not-just-questions-from-profe Feels a lot like 2009 discussions about Wikipedia in 2007/2008: ballooning visits, editors focusing on rollback, sadness spreading, less work getting done. It seems however that every community and research about community is going through the same issues and errors? Someone please give them pointers to useful research, or something. :) Nemo ___ 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 -- Jonathan T. Morgan Community Research Lead Wikimedia Foundation User:Jmorgan (WMF) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF) jmor...@wikimedia.org ___ 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] commentary on Wikipedia's community behaviour (Aaron gets a quote)
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/12/wikipedia_editing_d isputes_the_crowdsourced_encyclopedia_has_become_a_rancorous.single.html This is the predicated fallout of the recent ArbCom case in relation to civility (although there's a rather longer and more tortuous history to it). Kerry ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] StackExchange editor decline (serverfault)
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 3:15 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote: I continue to maintain that editor attrition is due to the natural transition from writing and completing new articles to maintaining old articles, and have seen nothing to convince me otherwise or of the validity of any alternative hypothesis. /me nods Sure, that's likely a huge factor. But do you really believe it's the *only* one? ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l -- Jonathan T. Morgan Community Research Lead Wikimedia Foundation User:Jmorgan (WMF) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF) jmor...@wikimedia.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] StackExchange editor decline (serverfault)
James, https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:The_Rise_and_Decline It seems clear that hostility has increased. Look at this graph specifically: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Desirable_newcomer_reverts_over_time.png -Aaron On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 3:55 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote: Jonathan Morgan wrote: On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 3:15 PM, James Salsman jsalsman at gmail.com wrote: I continue to maintain that editor attrition is due to the natural transition from writing and completing new articles to maintaining old articles, and have seen nothing to convince me otherwise or of the validity of any alternative hypothesis. /me nods Sure, that's likely a huge factor. But do you really believe it's the *only* one? It's certainly the only factor that I've ever seen supported by convincing data. A larger problem is that people continue to advance hypotheses which are easy to disprove. For example, people frequently say that hostility became worse after 2007. I can't see any support for that. If you don't believe me, go to a popular controversial article, then click history and oldest e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_warmingdir=prevaction=history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_warming/Archive_3#Examine_effects_of_change What other hypotheses can be supported by any data at all? ___ 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] StackExchange editor decline (serverfault)
Jonathan Morgan jmor...@wikimedia.org writes: My pet example, taken from an internet comment thread a couple years ago, and still true today: there's a Wikipedia article for every Linux distribution, but not a single Korean Supreme Court Justice has an article. Well, the Chief Justice does have an article, but none of the rest do. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yang_Sung-tae Nonetheless, point taken. Somewhat surprising to me is that it's even true in Western Europe: after a few years of living in Scandinavia, I've learned to check the Danish/Norwegian/Swedish Wikipedias for local information before the English one, because even though they are much smaller overall, their coverage of things like Scandinavian politics, history, or even buildings and city squares, is much better. The Greek Wikipedia also has much better coverage of post-classical Greece than the English one does, despite being one of the smaller Wikipedias. A problem with solving that is that in many cases the undercoverage is not only with us, but with the entire Anglophone reference literature, including academia and other encyclopedias. For example I'm interested in contemporary Greek literature, and very little of it is written up adequately in English (only a handful of major names). So en.wikipedia articles on the subject would need to be written by bilingual Greek/English speakers, possibly via translation from el.wikipedia. I think this type of undercoverage, where there are no good sources in the language of the Wikipedia in question, is much harder to solve via tackling systemic bias, because the bias goes beyond Wikipedia. That brings up a question: are there any studies attempting to tease apart those two sources of coverage bias? To what extent does the English Wikipedia (or the French, or German, or Japanese) bias its coverage *more* or *less* than the availability of sources in that language would otherwise predict? Does each one roughly reflect general source availability in that language, or do they superimpose additional biases on top of source availability? And does this differ between the languages? -Mark -- Mark J. Nelson IT University of Copenhagen http://www.kmjn.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] StackExchange editor decline (serverfault)
Jonathan Morgan wrote: ... not a single Korean Supreme Court Justice has an article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yang_Sung-tae http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_In-bok http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Sang-hoon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Shin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_So-young Aaron Halfaker wrote: ... It seems clear that hostility has increased. Look at this graph specifically: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Desirable_newcomer_reverts_over_time.png Where is the evidence that a greater proportion of reverts is associated with increased hostility instead of higher article quality standards? ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
[Wiki-research-l] Wikidata for Research - a research proposal
Dear all, we are drafting a research proposal on establishing Wikidata as a virtual research environment, as explained in http://blog.wikimedia.de/2014/12/05/wikidata-for-research-a-grant-proposal-that-anyone-can-edit/ . The proposal is being drafted via https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Wikidata_for_research and would benefit from critical review, so we would appreciate your comments, suggestions and edits. Thanks and cheers, Daniel -- http://www.naturkundemuseum-berlin.de/en/institution/mitarbeiter/mietchen-daniel/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daniel_Mietchen/Publications http://okfn.org http://wikimedia.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] commentary on Wikipedia's community behaviour (Aaron gets a quote)
thanks for the link (and, score, I got a quote, too! ;) dj On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:15 AM, Kerry Raymond kerry.raym...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/12/wikipedia_editing_disputes_the_crowdsourced_encyclopedia_has_become_a_rancorous.single.html This is the predicated fallout of the recent ArbCom case in relation to civility (although there’s a rather longer and more tortuous history to it). Kerry ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l -- __ prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010 Recenzje Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml Pacific Standard: http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/ Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia The Wikipedian: http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
