Re: [Wiki-research-l] Looking for help finding tools to measure UNESCO project

[Andrew Gray]

On 6 October 2015 at 14:12, Amir E. Aharoni
 wrote:
> Thanks for this email.
>
> This raises a wider question: What is the comfortable way to compare the
> coverage of a topic in different languages?
>
> For example, I'd love to see a report that says:
>
> Number of articles about UNESCO cultural heritage:
> English Wikipedia: 1000
> French Wikipedia: 1200
> Hebrew Wikipedia: 742
> etc.
>
> And also to track this over time, so if somebody would work hard on creating
> articles about UNESCO cultural heritage in Hebrew, I'd see a trend graph.

There's two general approaches to this:

a) On Wikidata
b) On the individual wikis

Approach (a) would rely on having a defined set of things in Wikidata
that we can identify. For example, "is a World Heritage Site" would be
easy enough, since we have a property explicitly dealing with WHS
identifiers (and we have 100% coverage in Wikidata). "Is of interest
to UNESCO" is a trickier one - but if you can construct a suitable
Wikidata query...

As Federico notes, for WHS records, we can generate a report like
https://tools.wmflabs.org/mix-n-match/?mode=sitestats=93
(57.4% coverage on hewiki!). No graphs but if you were interested then
you could probably set one up without much work.

b) is more useful for fuzzy groups like "of relevance to UNESCO",
since this is more or less perfect for a category system. However, it
would require examining the category tree for each WP you're
interested in to figure out exactly which categories are relevant, and
then running a script to count those daily.

A.
-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Looking for help finding tools to measure UNESCO project

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Amir E. Aharoni, 06/10/2015 15:12:

This raises a wider question: What is the comfortable way to compare the
coverage of a topic in different languages?


https://tools.wmflabs.org/mix-n-match/ . Example: 
https://tools.wmflabs.org/mix-n-match/?mode=sitestats=17


Nemo

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Reinforcing or incentivizing desired user behavior

[Jonathan Morgan]

Hi Pine,

The book *Building Successful Online Communities: Evidence Based Social
Design*[1] provides a great synthesis of concepts from economics,
sociology, and cognitive psychology as they apply to the design of projects
like Wikipedia. In fact, Wikipedia is one of the primary case studies used
in the book. They have several chapters that focus on motivation
techniques/tools. The book is easy to skim and apply!

Hope that helps,
Jonathan

1. https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/building-successful-online-communities

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Some of us plan to have a conversation at the WCONUSA unconference
> sessions about ENWP culture. Are there any recommended readings that you
> could suggest as preparation, particularly on the subject of how to
> reinforce or incentivize desirable user behavior? I think that Jonathan may
> have done some research on this topic for the Teahouse, and Ocassi may have
> for done research for TWA. I'm interested in applicable research as
> preparation both for the unconference discussion and for my planned video
> series that intends to inform and inspire new editors.
>
> Thanks,
> Pine
>



-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) 
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Reinforcing or incentivizing desired user behavior

[Edward Saperia]

shazam: http://www.raphkoster.com/games/presentations/wikipedia-is-a-game/

*Edward Saperia*
Founder Newspeak House 
email  • facebook  •
 twitter  • 07796955572
133-135 Bethnal Green Road, E2 7DG

On 6 October 2015 at 19:42, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> There was a presentation about game theory at WIkimania in London... Quite
> interesting.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On 6 October 2015 at 17:29, Jonathan Morgan  wrote:
>
>> Hi Pine,
>>
>> The book *Building Successful Online Communities: Evidence Based Social
>> Design*[1] provides a great synthesis of concepts from economics,
>> sociology, and cognitive psychology as they apply to the design of projects
>> like Wikipedia. In fact, Wikipedia is one of the primary case studies used
>> in the book. They have several chapters that focus on motivation
>> techniques/tools. The book is easy to skim and apply!
>>
>> Hope that helps,
>> Jonathan
>>
>> 1. https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/building-successful-online-communities
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Some of us plan to have a conversation at the WCONUSA unconference
>>> sessions about ENWP culture. Are there any recommended readings that you
>>> could suggest as preparation, particularly on the subject of how to
>>> reinforce or incentivize desirable user behavior? I think that Jonathan may
>>> have done some research on this topic for the Teahouse, and Ocassi may have
>>> for done research for TWA. I'm interested in applicable research as
>>> preparation both for the unconference discussion and for my planned video
>>> series that intends to inform and inspire new editors.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Pine
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jonathan T. Morgan
>> Senior Design Researcher
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>> User:Jmorgan (WMF) 
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Reinforcing or incentivizing desired user behavior

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello, that's this one:
http://www.raphkoster.com/tag/wikimania/

2015-10-06 20:42 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen :
> Hoi,
> There was a presentation about game theory at WIkimania in London... Quite
> interesting.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On 6 October 2015 at 17:29, Jonathan Morgan  wrote:
>>
>> Hi Pine,
>>
>> The book Building Successful Online Communities: Evidence Based Social
>> Design[1] provides a great synthesis of concepts from economics, sociology,
>> and cognitive psychology as they apply to the design of projects like
>> Wikipedia. In fact, Wikipedia is one of the primary case studies used in the
>> book. They have several chapters that focus on motivation techniques/tools.
>> The book is easy to skim and apply!
>>
>> Hope that helps,
>> Jonathan
>>
>> 1. https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/building-successful-online-communities
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Some of us plan to have a conversation at the WCONUSA unconference
>>> sessions about ENWP culture. Are there any recommended readings that you
>>> could suggest as preparation, particularly on the subject of how to
>>> reinforce or incentivize desirable user behavior? I think that Jonathan may
>>> have done some research on this topic for the Teahouse, and Ocassi may have
>>> for done research for TWA. I'm interested in applicable research as
>>> preparation both for the unconference discussion and for my planned video
>>> series that intends to inform and inspire new editors.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Pine
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jonathan T. Morgan
>> Senior Design Researcher
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>> User:Jmorgan (WMF)
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Reinforcing or incentivizing desired user behavior

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
There was a presentation about game theory at WIkimania in London... Quite
interesting.
Thanks,
GerardM

On 6 October 2015 at 17:29, Jonathan Morgan  wrote:

> Hi Pine,
>
> The book *Building Successful Online Communities: Evidence Based Social
> Design*[1] provides a great synthesis of concepts from economics,
> sociology, and cognitive psychology as they apply to the design of projects
> like Wikipedia. In fact, Wikipedia is one of the primary case studies used
> in the book. They have several chapters that focus on motivation
> techniques/tools. The book is easy to skim and apply!
>
> Hope that helps,
> Jonathan
>
> 1. https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/building-successful-online-communities
>
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Some of us plan to have a conversation at the WCONUSA unconference
>> sessions about ENWP culture. Are there any recommended readings that you
>> could suggest as preparation, particularly on the subject of how to
>> reinforce or incentivize desirable user behavior? I think that Jonathan may
>> have done some research on this topic for the Teahouse, and Ocassi may have
>> for done research for TWA. I'm interested in applicable research as
>> preparation both for the unconference discussion and for my planned video
>> series that intends to inform and inspire new editors.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Pine
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Jonathan T. Morgan
> Senior Design Researcher
> Wikimedia Foundation
> User:Jmorgan (WMF) 
>
>
> ___
> 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] Reinforcing or incentivizing desired user behavior

[WereSpielChequers]

 I thought if we had a "primary" badge or KPI system it was the content 
focussed ones and especially those related to Featured articles. Editcountitis 
is seen by many as a bit of a joke. But there many others including articles 
created and length of service. I do like the idea of celebrating our most 
thanked editors but I don't think the necessary information is currently public.

Regards

Jonathan 


> On 6 Oct 2015, at 07:33, Kerry Raymond  wrote:
> 
> Certainly there are a lot of sites with badges that do seem to encourage 
> certain behaviour. On Wikipedia, we have edit count and that seems to 
> generate editcountitis which (when gamed) tends to favour lots of little 
> housekeeping edits over content edits. But one of the things with badges on 
> most sites is that the site assigns the badge. Here on Wikipedia, I can put 
> any badge I want on my User Page (the pre-existing ones are mostly edit-count 
> based but I can roll my own as some users do). Indeed as I discovered, other 
> people can put badges on my user page and presumably take them away. As edit 
> count is our primary KPI, it doesn't address "cultural" attributes. Should we 
> be making more of an effort to promote other KPIs that emphasise positive 
> behaviour like thanks (given and received)? Unfortunately our main 
> interaction mechanism is writing on talk pages and it's hard to tell whether 
> any contribution on a talk page is a "positive" behaviour or a negative one 
> (short of some kind of sentiment analysis). This is an unfortunate 
> consequence of using a wiki for a conversation rather than some more 
> purpose-built tool. 
> 
> In principle one takes a KPI and then creates a badge to reward a behaviour 
> that improves that KPI. But that's all easier said than done.
> 
> For content improvements, there are probably some things we can do. For 
> example, I presume looking at the edit deltas, we could tell if an edit to an 
> article added a citation (a pair of ref tag in the new version that weren't 
> there in the old version). Adding citations is a desirable behaviour that we 
> could report on and give badges for (although obviously whether or not that 
> citation in any way supports the claim cannot be determined, so the "gaming" 
> of this is to add random citations to offline sources to lots of articles, 
> which cannot be easily verified). In which case maybe we need to give a 
> better score to an online citation on that grounds it is more likely to be 
> verifiable).
> 
> But positive "culture" or positive social behaviour is harder to detect and 
> reward. For example, we'd like to close the gendergap but firstly we don't 
> have KPI that measures it on an ongoing basis because we don't actually know 
> which contributors are male/female. And even if we had that KPI, what users 
> or their behaviours would we reward for having positive impact on that KPI? 
> In real-life, we might reward a customer who introduces a new customer. Or we 
> might have a "finders fee" for someone who introduces a "new hire". How could 
> we reward introducing new women to Wikipedia or encouraging them (perhaps 
> through mentoring) to contribute more? Or would we reward contributors who 
> contribute to articles about "women's topics" (which is addressing the 
> content gendergap rather than the contributor gendergap, which aren't the 
> same thing although many believe them to be closely linked). [I won't 
> disgress into the challenge of deciding how "female" an article topic is.]
> 
> On some sites, you need certain badges to "unlock" certain extra 
> functionalities. Are we happy for RfA to be a question of collecting up 
> enough badges? AFAIK, the only auto-implemented badge we have on Wikipedia is 
> the "auto-confirm" (4 days and 10 edits from memory).
> 
> I think badges are a good idea but I think the way Wikipedia is implemented 
> makes it challenging to machine-identify desirable behaviours to reward 
> (particularly for social/culture metrics). I think badges have (in the most 
> part) to be machine-calculated and awarded or else it just becomes a 
> popularity content (who's mates with who). I know Aaron (or someone) was 
> toying with the idea of putting a value on each edit (presumably based on 
> some training set of edit data that humans rated). I think it's not 
> impossible to come up with some set of dimensions on which an edit might be 
> valued and, using some human evaluations on a test set, come up with some 
> kind of values for each dimension. It might be rough in the first instance 
> but I guess if it incorporated some ongoing feedback mechanism, it could 
> improve over time.
> 
> A cheap thing that we could do (and I don't think we do) is have edit count 
> badges for  "last week", "last month", "last year". ATM we only have 
> "lifetime" counts, which makes it hard for the new user to get any quick 
> positive acknowledgements for their efforts. 
> 
> Kerry
> 
> 

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Reinforcing or incentivizing desired user behavior

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
This whole notion of reward is quite powerful. It works best when processes
have been designed with this in mind from the start. Again, Wikipedia is
just part of what is done within the WMF. One project that has been worked
on is a copy of the work done by Magnus Manske.. his effort is the game and
it has clear objective tasks that people can do on the train, while waiting.

It is the kind of process that easily aggregates edits and consequently
easily allows for badges, recognition etc. As far as I am aware this is not
done (yet).

With more Wikipedias using Wikidata for its content. It is well worth
expanding the attention to these efforts and see what more we can do to
objectively heap praise for time well spend.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 6 October 2015 at 08:33, Kerry Raymond  wrote:

> Certainly there are a lot of sites with badges that do seem to encourage
> certain behaviour. On Wikipedia, we have edit count and that seems to
> generate editcountitis which (when gamed) tends to favour lots of little
> housekeeping edits over content edits. But one of the things with badges on
> most sites is that the site assigns the badge. Here on Wikipedia, I can put
> any badge I want on my User Page (the pre-existing ones are mostly
> edit-count based but I can roll my own as some users do). Indeed as I
> discovered, other people can put badges on my user page and presumably take
> them away. As edit count is our primary KPI, it doesn't address "cultural"
> attributes. Should we be making more of an effort to promote other KPIs
> that emphasise positive behaviour like thanks (given and received)?
> Unfortunately our main interaction mechanism is writing on talk pages and
> it's hard to tell whether any contribution on a talk page is a "positive"
> behaviour or a negative one (short of some kind of sentiment analysis).
> This is an unfortunate consequence of using a wiki for a conversation
> rather than some more purpose-built tool.
>
> In principle one takes a KPI and then creates a badge to reward a
> behaviour that improves that KPI. But that's all easier said than done.
>
> For content improvements, there are probably some things we can do. For
> example, I presume looking at the edit deltas, we could tell if an edit to
> an article added a citation (a pair of ref tag in the new version that
> weren't there in the old version). Adding citations is a desirable
> behaviour that we could report on and give badges for (although obviously
> whether or not that citation in any way supports the claim cannot be
> determined, so the "gaming" of this is to add random citations to offline
> sources to lots of articles, which cannot be easily verified). In which
> case maybe we need to give a better score to an online citation on that
> grounds it is more likely to be verifiable).
>
> But positive "culture" or positive social behaviour is harder to detect
> and reward. For example, we'd like to close the gendergap but firstly we
> don't have KPI that measures it on an ongoing basis because we don't
> actually know which contributors are male/female. And even if we had that
> KPI, what users or their behaviours would we reward for having positive
> impact on that KPI? In real-life, we might reward a customer who introduces
> a new customer. Or we might have a "finders fee" for someone who introduces
> a "new hire". How could we reward introducing new women to Wikipedia or
> encouraging them (perhaps through mentoring) to contribute more? Or would
> we reward contributors who contribute to articles about "women's topics"
> (which is addressing the content gendergap rather than the contributor
> gendergap, which aren't the same thing although many believe them to be
> closely linked). [I won't disgress into the challenge of deciding how
> "female" an article topic is.]
>
> On some sites, you need certain badges to "unlock" certain extra
> functionalities. Are we happy for RfA to be a question of collecting up
> enough badges? AFAIK, the only auto-implemented badge we have on Wikipedia
> is the "auto-confirm" (4 days and 10 edits from memory).
>
> I think badges are a good idea but I think the way Wikipedia is
> implemented makes it challenging to machine-identify desirable behaviours
> to reward (particularly for social/culture metrics). I think badges have
> (in the most part) to be machine-calculated and awarded or else it just
> becomes a popularity content (who's mates with who). I know Aaron (or
> someone) was toying with the idea of putting a value on each edit
> (presumably based on some training set of edit data that humans rated). I
> think it's not impossible to come up with some set of dimensions on which
> an edit might be valued and, using some human evaluations on a test set,
> come up with some kind of values for each dimension. It might be rough in
> the first instance but I guess if it incorporated some ongoing feedback
> mechanism, it could improve over time.
>
> A cheap 

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Reinforcing or incentivizing desired user behavior

[Kerry Raymond]

Certainly there are a lot of sites with badges that do seem to encourage 
certain behaviour. On Wikipedia, we have edit count and that seems to generate 
editcountitis which (when gamed) tends to favour lots of little housekeeping 
edits over content edits. But one of the things with badges on most sites is 
that the site assigns the badge. Here on Wikipedia, I can put any badge I want 
on my User Page (the pre-existing ones are mostly edit-count based but I can 
roll my own as some users do). Indeed as I discovered, other people can put 
badges on my user page and presumably take them away. As edit count is our 
primary KPI, it doesn't address "cultural" attributes. Should we be making more 
of an effort to promote other KPIs that emphasise positive behaviour like 
thanks (given and received)? Unfortunately our main interaction mechanism is 
writing on talk pages and it's hard to tell whether any contribution on a talk 
page is a "positive" behaviour or a negative one (short of some kind of 
sentiment analysis). This is an unfortunate consequence of using a wiki for a 
conversation rather than some more purpose-built tool. 

In principle one takes a KPI and then creates a badge to reward a behaviour 
that improves that KPI. But that's all easier said than done.

For content improvements, there are probably some things we can do. For 
example, I presume looking at the edit deltas, we could tell if an edit to an 
article added a citation (a pair of ref tag in the new version that weren't 
there in the old version). Adding citations is a desirable behaviour that we 
could report on and give badges for (although obviously whether or not that 
citation in any way supports the claim cannot be determined, so the "gaming" of 
this is to add random citations to offline sources to lots of articles, which 
cannot be easily verified). In which case maybe we need to give a better score 
to an online citation on that grounds it is more likely to be verifiable).

But positive "culture" or positive social behaviour is harder to detect and 
reward. For example, we'd like to close the gendergap but firstly we don't have 
KPI that measures it on an ongoing basis because we don't actually know which 
contributors are male/female. And even if we had that KPI, what users or their 
behaviours would we reward for having positive impact on that KPI? In 
real-life, we might reward a customer who introduces a new customer. Or we 
might have a "finders fee" for someone who introduces a "new hire". How could 
we reward introducing new women to Wikipedia or encouraging them (perhaps 
through mentoring) to contribute more? Or would we reward contributors who 
contribute to articles about "women's topics" (which is addressing the content 
gendergap rather than the contributor gendergap, which aren't the same thing 
although many believe them to be closely linked). [I won't disgress into the 
challenge of deciding how "female" an article topic is.]

On some sites, you need certain badges to "unlock" certain extra 
functionalities. Are we happy for RfA to be a question of collecting up enough 
badges? AFAIK, the only auto-implemented badge we have on Wikipedia is the 
"auto-confirm" (4 days and 10 edits from memory).

I think badges are a good idea but I think the way Wikipedia is implemented 
makes it challenging to machine-identify desirable behaviours to reward 
(particularly for social/culture metrics). I think badges have (in the most 
part) to be machine-calculated and awarded or else it just becomes a popularity 
content (who's mates with who). I know Aaron (or someone) was toying with the 
idea of putting a value on each edit (presumably based on some training set of 
edit data that humans rated). I think it's not impossible to come up with some 
set of dimensions on which an edit might be valued and, using some human 
evaluations on a test set, come up with some kind of values for each dimension. 
It might be rough in the first instance but I guess if it incorporated some 
ongoing feedback mechanism, it could improve over time.

A cheap thing that we could do (and I don't think we do) is have edit count 
badges for  "last week", "last month", "last year". ATM we only have "lifetime" 
counts, which makes it hard for the new user to get any quick positive 
acknowledgements for their efforts. 

Kerry

-Original Message-
From: Wiki-research-l [mailto:wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On 
Behalf Of Robert West
Sent: Tuesday, 6 October 2015 1:05 PM
To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities 

Cc: Marti Johnson ; Patrick Earley 
; Jacob Orlowitz 
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Reinforcing or incentivizing desired user 
behavior

This paper is on using badges to steer user behavior:
https://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/kleinber/www13-badges.pdf

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Pine W  

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Reinforcing or incentivizing desired user behavior

[Jake Orlowitz]

We ran a badges pilot in the Teahouse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BADGE


The research page is particularly useful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BADGE/research


Also, here is the motivation research page for TWA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Adventure/Research


Hope this helps!

Jake

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 1:38 PM Jake Orlowitz 
wrote:

> We ran a badges pilot in the Teahouse.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BADGE
>
> The research page is particularly useful.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BADGE/research
>
> Also, here is the motivation research page for TWA
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Adventure/Research
>
> Hope this helps!
>
> Jake
>
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 8:29 AM Jonathan Morgan 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Pine,
>>
>> The book *Building Successful Online Communities: Evidence Based Social
>> Design*[1] provides a great synthesis of concepts from economics,
>> sociology, and cognitive psychology as they apply to the design of projects
>> like Wikipedia. In fact, Wikipedia is one of the primary case studies used
>> in the book. They have several chapters that focus on motivation
>> techniques/tools. The book is easy to skim and apply!
>>
>> Hope that helps,
>> Jonathan
>>
>> 1. https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/building-successful-online-communities
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Some of us plan to have a conversation at the WCONUSA unconference
>>> sessions about ENWP culture. Are there any recommended readings that you
>>> could suggest as preparation, particularly on the subject of how to
>>> reinforce or incentivize desirable user behavior? I think that Jonathan may
>>> have done some research on this topic for the Teahouse, and Ocassi may have
>>> for done research for TWA. I'm interested in applicable research as
>>> preparation both for the unconference discussion and for my planned video
>>> series that intends to inform and inspire new editors.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Pine
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jonathan T. Morgan
>> Senior Design Researcher
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>> User:Jmorgan (WMF) 
>>
>>
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

[Wiki-research-l] Feedback requested for research-oriented Individual Engagement Grant proposals!

[Chris Schilling]

Hey researchers,

Applicants for the current round of Individual Engagement Grants (IEG) have
submitted two proposals that are heavily devoted to research activities:

Editor Behaviour Analysis
 >
Aims to explore different ways to visualise general edit activity on a wiki

Ghana Editor Study
 > Study of
different Ghanaian Wikipedia editor groups to assess motivation

Applicants are seeking your feedback in these research initiatives.  If one
of these ideas any of the other current proposals interests you, consider
reading it over, and feel free to endorse, express concerns, make
suggestions, and ask questions.  Your input and expertise will help the
applicants develop better proposals, and support the IEG Committee during
their evaluation. Comments are requested until October 19th.


You are, of course, welcome to check out and comment on other IEG
applications for this round
.

With thanks,

Jethro

-- 
Chris "Jethro" Schilling
I JethroBT (WMF) 
Community Organizer, Wikimedia Foundation

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Reinforcing or incentivizing desired user behavior

[Nick Wilson (Quiddity)]

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 12:25 AM, WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:

>  I thought if we had a "primary" badge or KPI system it was the content
> focussed ones and especially those related to Featured articles.


+1
Though as discussed, almost anything automated can be 'gamed' (in the
negative sense), and anything that requires human-discretion can too
(either by someone placing an unwarranted award, or by someone placing an
award that others might vociferously disagree with, e.g a diplomacy
barnstar).
Enwiki's existing profusion of barnstars and other award types are most
easily found via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Barnstar_pages


Editcountitis is seen by many as a bit of a joke. But there many others
> including articles created and length of service.


I'd love to have the output from various of the offwiki tools, available as
a "module/template" that I could optionally embed in my userpage at any
wiki.
E.g. the lists and barcharts, from places like:
http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/pages/
http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/
and numerical counts of (non-automatic) patrols and reviews that we've
contributed,
and other tweaked items from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User_toolbox



> I do like the idea of celebrating our most thanked editors but I don't
> think the necessary information is currently public.
>

The "Thank" itself is publicly logged, just not which edit it was sent for.
Fae collects monthly top 10 "Thankers" and "Thanked" on various projects,
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Faebot/thanks
IIRC, projects must opt-in, and individuals can opt-out.
(discussed in the thread starting here:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-February/076731.html
)


On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 11:33 PM, Kerry Raymond 
wrote:

> [...] Unfortunately our main interaction mechanism is writing on talk
> pages and it's hard to tell whether any contribution on a talk page is a
> "positive" behaviour or a negative one (short of some kind of sentiment
> analysis). This is an unfortunate consequence of using a wiki for a
> conversation rather than some more purpose-built tool.
>

Obligatory mention of Flow ;-)
All sorts of things should be possible with a structured system like this.
For example the number of topics that an editor "Marks as resolved" (and
isn't subsequently reverted). Perhaps/especially on specific pages such as
helpdesks. E.g. Frwiki has been experimenting with a mixture of their old
template system (in the "Summary" area) and Flow's "Resolved" status, at
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Forum_des_nouveaux/Flow - open
the ToC to see the resolved topics in a lighter text color, and skim down
the page looking at the blue/red templates (which denote: questions that
need more information from the original poster, and questions that aren't
appropriate for that page).


There was also an editfilter tracking the usage of the WikiLove extension,
but it appears that was disabled in February 2015 due to performance issues
with too many concurrent editfilters (IIUC). old results:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog=423
However, there is still a database table tracking these Wikilove actions,
just without an onwiki UI, so those details could perhaps be utilized, too.

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Looking for help finding tools to measure UNESCO project

[Amir E. Aharoni]

Thanks for this email.

This raises a wider question: What is the comfortable way to compare the
coverage of a topic in different languages?

For example, I'd love to see a report that says:

Number of articles about UNESCO cultural heritage:
English Wikipedia: 1000
French Wikipedia: 1200
Hebrew Wikipedia: 742
etc.

And also to track this over time, so if somebody would work hard on
creating articles about UNESCO cultural heritage in Hebrew, I'd see a trend
graph.

Of course, this can be relevant to any topic.


--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬

2015-10-02 13:43 GMT+03:00 john cummings :

> Hi All
>
> This is my first time posing on this list, I'm sorry if it is perhaps a
> little off topic. I'm currently Wikimedian in Residence at UNESCO and plan
> to run an online collaboration, a little bit like a short term Wikiproject
> with two main goals:
>
>
>- Help organise reuse of UNESCO content on Wikimedia projects (UNESCO
>has released content under an open license and will do more shortly).
>
>
>- Help improve content on Wikimedia of the subjects of UNESCO
>programmes e.g the World Heritage Sites.
>
>
> I have been planning ways that I can use tools to:
>
>
>- Organise work for contributors across all languages
>- Provide contributors feedback on their contributions (e.g page views
>for all contributions combined)
>- Measure success of the project.
>
>
> I've been doing this on wiki here
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:John_Cummings/Planning_UNESCO_metrics
>
> In short I'm finding it very hard to find the tools needed, I have found
> less than a third of what I think would be helpful but found others that
> may be tangentially useful which I've added in.
>
> Any help would be appreciate, please feel free to comment here, on the
> talk page or just add tools to the fields
>
> Thanks
>
> John
>
> ___
> 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] Looking for help finding tools to measure UNESCO project

[Magnus Manske]

I happen to work on a tool (initially for Liam Wyatt) that might do some of
what you want on Wikidata. Given a Wikidata Query (separate topic ;-) or a
simple list of Wikidata items, it can record changes made to these items
over time. It records the JSON for the Wikidata items, max of one
revision/day.

A front-end (to be written) can then extract things like number of
sitelinks (Wikipedia articles) for these items over time; Wikidata labels
in different languages; number/type of statements added; etc. Ideally, this
can be exported as a table, to make pretty stats in R (or the like).

As I said, it's work in progress, but if you have a (initial) list of
items, I can start "recording".

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 4:54 PM Andrew Gray 
wrote:

> On 6 October 2015 at 14:12, Amir E. Aharoni
>  wrote:
> > Thanks for this email.
> >
> > This raises a wider question: What is the comfortable way to compare the
> > coverage of a topic in different languages?
> >
> > For example, I'd love to see a report that says:
> >
> > Number of articles about UNESCO cultural heritage:
> > English Wikipedia: 1000
> > French Wikipedia: 1200
> > Hebrew Wikipedia: 742
> > etc.
> >
> > And also to track this over time, so if somebody would work hard on
> creating
> > articles about UNESCO cultural heritage in Hebrew, I'd see a trend graph.
>
> There's two general approaches to this:
>
> a) On Wikidata
> b) On the individual wikis
>
> Approach (a) would rely on having a defined set of things in Wikidata
> that we can identify. For example, "is a World Heritage Site" would be
> easy enough, since we have a property explicitly dealing with WHS
> identifiers (and we have 100% coverage in Wikidata). "Is of interest
> to UNESCO" is a trickier one - but if you can construct a suitable
> Wikidata query...
>
> As Federico notes, for WHS records, we can generate a report like
> https://tools.wmflabs.org/mix-n-match/?mode=sitestats=93
> (57.4% coverage on hewiki!). No graphs but if you were interested then
> you could probably set one up without much work.
>
> b) is more useful for fuzzy groups like "of relevance to UNESCO",
> since this is more or less perfect for a category system. However, it
> would require examining the category tree for each WP you're
> interested in to figure out exactly which categories are relevant, and
> then running a script to count those daily.
>
> A.
> --
> - Andrew Gray
>   andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
>
> ___
> 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