Hi Kerry,
I think that such a tool, if ever, should be used only if everyone who agrees
with implementing it has had their own behaviour analysed publicly...
btw,
one reason why the "thank you" function is not used widely on Wikipedia
might be that their logs are made public, even if for the entries some
information is scraped. I consider screened does not usually have the effect
of trust enhancement, so this would be an interesting issue to look into for
the measures you suggest.
my position is that with any kind of surveillance, alleged benefits never
balance the losses, for individual and social freedom, for a culture of mutual
trust, for sharing freely what would otherwise risk to be self-censored, not
least for civil society's antimilitarist activism, etc. ...
my cautious note on gender stats (that seem to talk about facts re the enWP
community) is in part motivated by similar thoughts as yours, Kerry,
pinpointing behaviour and drawing conclusions;
because:
talking about any numbers in a short line of no more that 10 words will never
allow for any transparency about the assumptions underlying the measuring
and counting exercise, but it is precisely these that *create* the data in the
first place,
and I guess that the concept-creating exercise that I read in your mail
therefore would have to be made public, too, in as easy words as you do here,
and not in any discourse that is inaccessible for too many of those (like
myself) who would be affected by an implementation
I guess that while goodwill is nice (to read about), research in my
understanding should start from reflections about one's own perspective and
not from any claims about "what is out there" -- but rather: "what do I see to
be the case out there" and also: why do I perceive this to be my perception --
yes, it is no less complicated that this, and I am not the first one to argue
in
this vein
anyway, here again, Lorde's insight that the master's tools will never
dismantle the master's house might serve as a cautious note about any claim
published and quoted in/from mainstream research
best,
Claudia
-- Original Message ---
From:"Kerry Raymond"
To:"'Research into Wikimedia content and communities'"
Sent:Fri, 20 Feb 2015 11:18:15 +1000
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
[Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> I agree if a person enjoys bullying, they are
> unlikely to self-correct. But an "interaction
> sentiment tool" makes it easier for the community
> to spot these people, and look more closely into
> what they are doing. Then try to get them to
> change, and until such time as
> they ban them.
>
> My comment about self-correcting behaviour is
> about people who don't intend to be a bully but
> behave abrasively without realising it. We have a
> lot of battle-weary editors out there who have
> just seen one too many vandalism, one too many
> blatant self-promotional article, etc and they
> become inclined to just shoot down "yet another"
> with increasing reluctance to check out the merits
> of the specific case, or to be terse and unhelpful
> in a Talk message etc. We've probably all had
> those moments of finding some new user's
> contribution that needs so much work to improve
> and thought "I'm just too busy, I don't have time
> to educate yet another one who probably won't
> stick around anyway, I'll just delete it and move
> on". I believe that most of our community does not
> intend to be a "bully" but may not be aware that
> is how they might seem to others at times. Letting
> people be aware that their interaction style is
> exhibiting higher than average "negative
> sentiment" *is* likely to change the behaviour of
> that group.
>
> Obviously if we were to put such a tool out there,
> I'd suggest adding some general advice about what
> you might do if your score is "pretty negative",
> e.g.
>
> * think about the choice of words you use, don't
> use words like ..., instead use ...
>
> * are you terse or just point to a policy without
> being specific about your concerns
>
> * could you have suggested a solution rather than
> just pointing out a problem?
>
> * is it time for a wiki-break to recharge your batteries?
>
> The sentiment score is likely to be generated from
> assessment of a number of elements of the observed
> interactions, so, for an individual looking at
> their score, it might be possible to make specific
> suggestions based on specific component scores,
> e.g. pointing out specific "abrasive" words being
> used regularly and suggesting alternatives.
>
> Here's a suggestion for something a lot simpler
> than the "international sentiment tool". Just
> produce some word clouds for:
>
> * a user's edit summaries
>
> * a user's edits on article Talk pages
>
> * a user's edits on other people's User
> Talk pages
>
> * a user's edits on their own User Talk pag
