Re: [Wiki-research-l] WMF Open Access Policy and Independent Researchers

[Jonathan Morgan]

Hi Daniel,

Thank you for the information. There are still aspects of implementation
that are unclear to me, and perhaps for others as well. Please see below.

Best,
Jonathan

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Daniel Mietchen <
daniel.mietc...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> this situation was actually discussed in detail when the policy was
> drafted, and it is reflected in two parts of the policy:
> - Under "C. Published Materials. Researchers will publish any output
> in an Open Access outlet under a Free License.", it states
> "If a work based on the project is accepted for publication in a peer
> reviewed outlet that does not make its articles available online, free
> of charge, and under free licenses, an electronic copy of the author’s
> accepted manuscript will be submitted to a public and permanently
> archived repository by the official date of publication, without any
> embargo period, and released under a Free License." ==> This basically
> means you can publish in closed-access journals, as long as you make a
> pre- or postprint openly available.


Any pointers on what consistutes a pre-print? Perhaps Aaron Halfaker can
speak to this. I know he went through this dance with SAGE for the Rise and
Decline paper.




> - Under "2. Limited waiver", it states
> "Specific waivers from the expectations above may be applied in
> limited circumstances on a case-by-case basis. Researchers wanting a
> waiver are required to submit to the Wikimedia Foundation, in writing,
> a detailed explanation of why they require the waiver. The Wikimedia
> Foundation will publicly post a summary of the request and its
> response. "
>

Who at WMF should these waivers be submitted to? Who reviews and responds?
What are the consequences if the exemption is not granted?



> This is also covered in the FAQ, part D, along with limited funding
> options (cf.
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Open_access_policy/FAQ ).
>
> Cheers,
> d.
>
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 10:17 PM, Jonathan Morgan 
> wrote:
> > Thanks, Sydney and Pine.
> >
> > This is timely, as Resources is currently re-vamping their instructions
> for
> > grant proposals (including research-focused grants). So it's a good time
> to
> > hammer out our policy and process here.
> >
> > Max: if you're willing to ping me off-list and relate some of the
> details of
> > your conversation, that will help me follow up on the particular issue
> > you're facing right now.
> >
> > I want this to be clear and easy for grantees going forward—if WMF is
> > funding research, we should be prepared to support the dissemination of
> that
> > research in a way that aligns with our values. In the future, I would
> like
> > to see grantees budget anticipated OA fees into their requests, and a
> > process for vetting this during the proposal review period.
> >
> > I know there has been some conversation between Research and Resources
> > around this issue in the past, but I don't know if there were decisions
> > made... more likely I'll need to start it back up again. We're all still
> > working out the kinks in the OA policy (even staff researchers are
> trying to
> > understand the ramifications for our work).
> >
> > I'll make sure to notify this list when I learn more.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Sydney Poore 
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Max,
> >>
> >> This issue was discussed in the context of a paper about Wikipedia
> working
> >> with medical students in the classroom.
> >>
> >> See the talk page and endorsements for the discussion that led to the
> >> grant being approved. .
> >>
> >>
> >>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:PEG/bluerasberry/open_access_release_funding_for_paper_on_Wikipedia_in_classroom
> >>
> >> Sydney
> >>
> >> Sydney Poore
> >> User:FloNight
> >> Wiki Project Med Foundation
> >> WikiWomen's User Group
> >> Facebook https://www.facebook.com/sydney.e.poore
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Maximilian Klein 
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hello All,
> >>>
> >>> As you might know WMF has an Open Access Policy that requires all work
> >>> that they fund to be Open Access[1]. A strange consequence of this
> policy,
> >>> that I recently ran into, is that it requires researchers funded by
> grants
> >>> to publish OA -- but without providing any funding to do so. That is, I
> >>> recently completed an Individual Engagement Grant (IEG), part of whose
> scope
> >>> was explicitly to write a paper about the work[2], and when I wrote to
> WMF
> >>> to acquire funds for OA publishing, they confirmed that the paper was
> under
> >>> the OA mandate but indicated that funds were not available to pay for
> OA
> >>> publishing.
> >>>
> >>> Has anyone else use WMF's Open Access Policy?  What was your
> experience?
> >>>
> >>> [1] 

Re: [Wiki-research-l] WMF Open Access Policy and Independent Researchers

[Daniel Mietchen]

Dear all,

this situation was actually discussed in detail when the policy was
drafted, and it is reflected in two parts of the policy:
- Under "C. Published Materials. Researchers will publish any output
in an Open Access outlet under a Free License.", it states
"If a work based on the project is accepted for publication in a peer
reviewed outlet that does not make its articles available online, free
of charge, and under free licenses, an electronic copy of the author’s
accepted manuscript will be submitted to a public and permanently
archived repository by the official date of publication, without any
embargo period, and released under a Free License." ==> This basically
means you can publish in closed-access journals, as long as you make a
pre- or postprint openly available.
- Under "2. Limited waiver", it states
"Specific waivers from the expectations above may be applied in
limited circumstances on a case-by-case basis. Researchers wanting a
waiver are required to submit to the Wikimedia Foundation, in writing,
a detailed explanation of why they require the waiver. The Wikimedia
Foundation will publicly post a summary of the request and its
response. "

This is also covered in the FAQ, part D, along with limited funding options (cf.
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Open_access_policy/FAQ ).

Cheers,
d.

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 10:17 PM, Jonathan Morgan  wrote:
> Thanks, Sydney and Pine.
>
> This is timely, as Resources is currently re-vamping their instructions for
> grant proposals (including research-focused grants). So it's a good time to
> hammer out our policy and process here.
>
> Max: if you're willing to ping me off-list and relate some of the details of
> your conversation, that will help me follow up on the particular issue
> you're facing right now.
>
> I want this to be clear and easy for grantees going forward—if WMF is
> funding research, we should be prepared to support the dissemination of that
> research in a way that aligns with our values. In the future, I would like
> to see grantees budget anticipated OA fees into their requests, and a
> process for vetting this during the proposal review period.
>
> I know there has been some conversation between Research and Resources
> around this issue in the past, but I don't know if there were decisions
> made... more likely I'll need to start it back up again. We're all still
> working out the kinks in the OA policy (even staff researchers are trying to
> understand the ramifications for our work).
>
> I'll make sure to notify this list when I learn more.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Sydney Poore 
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Max,
>>
>> This issue was discussed in the context of a paper about Wikipedia working
>> with medical students in the classroom.
>>
>> See the talk page and endorsements for the discussion that led to the
>> grant being approved. .
>>
>>
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:PEG/bluerasberry/open_access_release_funding_for_paper_on_Wikipedia_in_classroom
>>
>> Sydney
>>
>> Sydney Poore
>> User:FloNight
>> Wiki Project Med Foundation
>> WikiWomen's User Group
>> Facebook https://www.facebook.com/sydney.e.poore
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Maximilian Klein 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello All,
>>>
>>> As you might know WMF has an Open Access Policy that requires all work
>>> that they fund to be Open Access[1]. A strange consequence of this policy,
>>> that I recently ran into, is that it requires researchers funded by grants
>>> to publish OA -- but without providing any funding to do so. That is, I
>>> recently completed an Individual Engagement Grant (IEG), part of whose scope
>>> was explicitly to write a paper about the work[2], and when I wrote to WMF
>>> to acquire funds for OA publishing, they confirmed that the paper was under
>>> the OA mandate but indicated that funds were not available to pay for OA
>>> publishing.
>>>
>>> Has anyone else use WMF's Open Access Policy?  What was your experience?
>>>
>>> [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Open_access_policy
>>> [2]
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/WIGI:_Wikipedia_Gender_Index#Activities
>>>
>>> Make a great day,
>>> Max Klein ‽ http://notconfusing.com/
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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
> 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] WMF Open Access Policy and Independent Researchers

[Pine W]

Thanks Jonathan.

Max, just a question. Where were you told that "the paper was under the OA
mandate but indicated that funds were not available to pay for OA
publishing."? This sounds like something that may need some additional
thought from Grantmaking. I looked for a discussion on the WGI talk page
but that discussion isn't there. I'm too stretched with other commitments
to escalate this issue myself, but if the combination of issues is as
described in this email thread then this issue might be good for
Grantmaking to consider in light of the bigger picture.

Thanks,

Pine

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 6:49 PM, Maximilian Klein  wrote:

> Hello All,
>
> As you might know WMF has an Open Access Policy that requires all work
> that they fund to be Open Access[1]. A strange consequence of this policy,
> that I recently ran into, is that it requires researchers funded by grants
> to publish OA -- but without providing any funding to do so. That is, I
> recently completed an Individual Engagement Grant (IEG), part of whose
> scope was explicitly to write a paper about the work[2], and when I wrote
> to WMF to acquire funds for OA publishing, they confirmed that the paper
> was under the OA mandate but indicated that funds were not available to pay
> for OA publishing.
>
> Has anyone else use WMF's Open Access Policy?  What was your experience?
>
> [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Open_access_policy
> [2]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/WIGI:_Wikipedia_Gender_Index#Activities
>
> Make a great day,
> Max Klein ‽ http://notconfusing.com/
>
> ___
> 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] WMF Open Access Policy and Independent Researchers

[James Salsman]

Max, this advise is very good:

> On 6/29/2016 11:01, Stuart A. Yeates wrote:
>
> There are many open access journals which do not charge fees or any
> description.  See http://www.opendoar.org/ or talk to a friendly
> librarian to find a journal that meets your needs.

Please see also Table 5 on p. 1320 (PDF p. 6) in
http://octavia.zoology.washington.edu/publications/WestEtAl14.pdf

That suggests the Journal of Machine Learning Research may be a good
high-impact, zero-fee choice, if appropriate.

There are alternatives by the same authors at
http://www.eigenfactor.org/openaccess/oa.php?catid=50=0
in particular, College and Research Libraries and the Journal of the
Medical Library Association, if appropriate.

http://www.eigenfactor.org/openaccess/oa.php?catid=29=0
has another bunch, such as the Journal of Educational Research.

http://www.eigenfactor.org/openaccess/oa.php?catid=129=0
suggests Computational Linguistics.

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] WMF Open Access Policy and Independent Researchers

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

Dariusz Jemielniak писал 2016-06-29 15:58:

what Piotr wrote. If you're a scholar at a research-driven
institution, the chances are you are required to publish in SSCI (JCR)
journals. The typical OA fees for the journals listed there are
1,000-2,000 USD.

dj


Absolutely, we have the same (my field is physics). Some of our top 
journals are OA, the fees start from Eur 1000, and it is our 
responsibility to find funding.


Cheers
Yaroslav

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] WMF Open Access Policy and Independent Researchers

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

what Piotr wrote. If you're a scholar at a research-driven institution, the
chances are you are required to publish in SSCI (JCR) journals. The typical
OA fees for the journals listed there are 1,000-2,000 USD.

dj

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 1:38 AM, Piotr Konieczny  wrote:

> The problem is that most of those are not indexed in top tier indexes. For
> example, my career requires me to publish in SSCI index, and in my field,
> sociology, do you know how many out of ~120 journals indexed in SSCI are
> green open access? Zero.
>
> WMF grants exist to make research easier, but they also should take into
> consideration the realities of academic publishing. Personally, I hate to
> think that my research goes to support parasites like Elsevier and their
> ilk, but if I publish in the green open access journals I respect, well, my
> evaluation from the university bureaucrats will not be very respectful to
> me. So publishing my wiki research in such venues is not an option.
>
> Of course, you may say that in such case I should not ask for WMF grants
> at all, but I do not think that we should penalize researchers who are in
> fields like sociology - it is not their fault that the OA movement hasn't
> made much inroads in their field (well, it is, to some degree, but that's
> going OT). Bottom line is that WMF grants should support research and its
> dissemination in what is seen as quality journals and  related outlets, too.
>
> --
>
> Piotr Konieczny, 
> PhDhttp://hanyang.academia.edu/PiotrKoniecznyhttp://scholar.google.com/citations?user=gdV8_AEJhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Piotrus
>
> On 6/29/2016 11:01, Stuart A. Yeates wrote:
>
> There are many open access journals which do not charge fees or any
> description.  See http://www.opendoar.org/ or talk to a friendly
> librarian to find a journal that meets your needs.
>
> cheers
> stuart
>
> --
> ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
>
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Maximilian Klein < 
> isa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello All,
>>
>> As you might know WMF has an Open Access Policy that requires all work
>> that they fund to be Open Access[1]. A strange consequence of this policy,
>> that I recently ran into, is that it requires researchers funded by grants
>> to publish OA -- but without providing any funding to do so. That is, I
>> recently completed an Individual Engagement Grant (IEG), part of whose
>> scope was explicitly to write a paper about the work[2], and when I wrote
>> to WMF to acquire funds for OA publishing, they confirmed that the paper
>> was under the OA mandate but indicated that funds were not available to pay
>> for OA publishing.
>>
>> Has anyone else use WMF's Open Access Policy?  What was your experience?
>>
>> [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Open_access_policy
>> [2]
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/WIGI:_Wikipedia_Gender_Index#Activities
>>
>> Make a great day,
>> Max Klein ‽ http://notconfusing.com/
>>
>> ___
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>>
>
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing 
> listWiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://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
>
>


-- 

__
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
i grupy badawczej NeRDS
Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
http://n wrds.kozminski.edu.pl

członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] WMF Open Access Policy and Independent Researchers

[Ward Cunningham]

As a casual reader of this list would it be foolish of me to suggest that you 
seek funding from a variety of sources and publish the results in a variety of 
journals? Your methodological skills and depth of personal insight would carry 
over between academic reality and the open ideal, no?

Best regards -- Ward

On Jun 28, 2016, at 10:38 PM, Piotr Konieczny  wrote:

> The problem is that most of those are not indexed in top tier indexes. For 
> example, my career requires me to publish in SSCI index, and in my field, 
> sociology, do you know how many out of ~120 journals indexed in SSCI are 
> green open access? Zero. 
> WMF grants exist to make research easier, but they also should take into 
> consideration the realities of academic publishing. Personally, I hate to 
> think that my research goes to support parasites like Elsevier and their ilk, 
> but if I publish in the green open access journals I respect, well, my 
> evaluation from the university bureaucrats will not be very respectful to me. 
> So publishing my wiki research in such venues is not an option.
> 
> Of course, you may say that in such case I should not ask for WMF grants at 
> all, but I do not think that we should penalize researchers who are in fields 
> like sociology - it is not their fault that the OA movement hasn't made much 
> inroads in their field (well, it is, to some degree, but that's going OT). 
> Bottom line is that WMF grants should support research and its dissemination 
> in what is seen as quality journals and  related outlets, too.
> --
> 
> Piotr Konieczny, PhD
> 
> http://hanyang.academia.edu/PiotrKonieczny
> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=gdV8_AEJ
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Piotrus
> On 6/29/2016 11:01, Stuart A. Yeates wrote:
>> There are many open access journals which do not charge fees or any 
>> description.  See http://www.opendoar.org/ or talk to a friendly librarian 
>> to find a journal that meets your needs. 
>> 
>> cheers
>> stuart
>> 
>> --
>> ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
>> 
>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Maximilian Klein  wrote:
>> Hello All,
>> 
>> As you might know WMF has an Open Access Policy that requires all work that 
>> they fund to be Open Access[1]. A strange consequence of this policy, that I 
>> recently ran into, is that it requires researchers funded by grants to 
>> publish OA -- but without providing any funding to do so. That is, I 
>> recently completed an Individual Engagement Grant (IEG), part of whose scope 
>> was explicitly to write a paper about the work[2], and when I wrote to WMF 
>> to acquire funds for OA publishing, they confirmed that the paper was under 
>> the OA mandate but indicated that funds were not available to pay for OA 
>> publishing.
>> 
>> Has anyone else use WMF's Open Access Policy?  What was your experience?
>> 
>> [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Open_access_policy
>> [2] 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/WIGI:_Wikipedia_Gender_Index#Activities
>> 
>> Make a great day,
>> Max Klein ‽ http://notconfusing.com/ 
>> 
>> ___
>> 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


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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Analytics] question about Pageviews dumps

[Marc Miquel]

Yes, the whole thing is about page_title or page_ids. I think Wikipedia as
a project provides very different types of information and it would be
interesting to see how they are actually read, checked, etc. Likewise, I
would need to see variations in different language editions. But not
something large-scale or for long periods,...this is why a few days sample
would be valuable.

Anyway, thanks for the datasets link, Oliver.

Marc

El dc., 29 juny 2016 a les 13:58, Oliver Keyes () va
escriure:

> Aye, as Joseph says, the time-on-page or time-leaving is not collected,
> except as an extension of session reconstruction work. If you want a
> concrete time, you're not gonna get it.
>
> While PC-based data is more reliable than mobile, that does not
> necessarily mean "reliable". I'm sort of confused, I guess, as to why the
> datasets I linked (unless I'm misremembering them?) don't help: you would
> have to do the calculation yourself but they should contain all the data
> necessary to make that calculation (unless you want to have the pageID or
> title associated with the time-on-page, in which case...yeah, that's an
> issue).
>
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 3:16 AM, Marc Miquel  wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the answer, Oliver. But I am not sure it answers my
>> questions. I'd like to study aspects like how much time is spent in
>> certain pages, as a proxy of how content is approached/read/understood. I'd
>> be happy with time of entering the page, time of leaving. This is not
>> entirely centered on 'user activity', but I said that because I imagined
>> data would be stored in a similar way to editor sessions, or in a database
>> and I would need to do the time calculations.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Marc
>>
>>
>> El dc., 29 juny, 2016 03:11, Oliver Keyes  va
>> escriure:
>>
>>> If historic data is okay, there's already a dataset released (
>>> https://figshare.com/articles/Activity_Sessions_datasets/1291033) that
>>> was designed specifically to answer questions around how to best calculate
>>> session length with regards to Wikipedia (http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.2878
>>> )
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Marc Miquel 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hello!

 I was thinking about user sessions, yes, so this would mean to
 aggregate pageviews visited by a user during a short amount of time (I
 should check the cutoff, but it could be around an hour or less).

 I am particularly interested in understanding the order in which pages
 are seen (start, end), duration, etc.
 I wouldn't need data from a long period neither, but I think data from
 multiple languages would be helpful.

 I imagined reader data could be sensitive to privacy, but would an NDA
 with my university and some sort of data encoding help with this? As I
 said, it is for a scientific purpose.

 Thanks,

 Marc

 El dt., 28 juny 2016 a les 21:09, Nuria Ruiz ()
 va escriure:

>
> Hello!
>
> >I am considering to study reader engagement for different article
> topics in different languages. Because of this, I would like to know if
> there is >any plan to make available pageviews dumps detailing activity 
> log
> at session level per user - in a similar way to editor sessions.
>
> Are you thinking of "all-pageviews-visited-by-a-certain-user"? If so,
> no we do not have any projects to provide that data as due to privacy
> concerns we neither have nor keep that information.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nuria
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Leila Zia 
> wrote:
>
>> + Analytics
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 6:36 AM, Marc Miquel 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I have a question for you regarding pageviews datadumps.
>>>
>>> I am considering to study reader engagement for different article
>>> topics in different languages. Because of this, I would like to know if
>>> there is any plan to make available pageviews dumps detailing activity 
>>> log
>>> at session level per user - in a similar way to editor sessions.
>>>
>>> Since this would be for a research project I might ask funding for
>>> it, I would like to know if I could count on that, what is the nature of
>>> the available data, and what would be the procedure to obtain this data 
>>> and
>>> if there would be any implication because of privacy concerns.
>>>
>>> Thank you very much!
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Marc Miquel
>>> ᐧ
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>
>>>
>>
>> 

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Analytics] question about Pageviews dumps

[Oliver Keyes]

Aye, as Joseph says, the time-on-page or time-leaving is not collected,
except as an extension of session reconstruction work. If you want a
concrete time, you're not gonna get it.

While PC-based data is more reliable than mobile, that does not necessarily
mean "reliable". I'm sort of confused, I guess, as to why the datasets I
linked (unless I'm misremembering them?) don't help: you would have to do
the calculation yourself but they should contain all the data necessary to
make that calculation (unless you want to have the pageID or title
associated with the time-on-page, in which case...yeah, that's an issue).

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 3:16 AM, Marc Miquel  wrote:

> Thanks for the answer, Oliver. But I am not sure it answers my questions. I'd
> like to study aspects like how much time is spent in certain pages, as a
> proxy of how content is approached/read/understood. I'd be happy with time
> of entering the page, time of leaving. This is not entirely centered on
> 'user activity', but I said that because I imagined data would be stored in
> a similar way to editor sessions, or in a database and I would need to do
> the time calculations.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Marc
>
>
> El dc., 29 juny, 2016 03:11, Oliver Keyes  va
> escriure:
>
>> If historic data is okay, there's already a dataset released (
>> https://figshare.com/articles/Activity_Sessions_datasets/1291033) that
>> was designed specifically to answer questions around how to best calculate
>> session length with regards to Wikipedia (http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.2878)
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Marc Miquel 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello!
>>>
>>> I was thinking about user sessions, yes, so this would mean to aggregate
>>> pageviews visited by a user during a short amount of time (I should check
>>> the cutoff, but it could be around an hour or less).
>>>
>>> I am particularly interested in understanding the order in which pages
>>> are seen (start, end), duration, etc.
>>> I wouldn't need data from a long period neither, but I think data from
>>> multiple languages would be helpful.
>>>
>>> I imagined reader data could be sensitive to privacy, but would an NDA
>>> with my university and some sort of data encoding help with this? As I
>>> said, it is for a scientific purpose.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Marc
>>>
>>> El dt., 28 juny 2016 a les 21:09, Nuria Ruiz () va
>>> escriure:
>>>

 Hello!

 >I am considering to study reader engagement for different article
 topics in different languages. Because of this, I would like to know if
 there is >any plan to make available pageviews dumps detailing activity log
 at session level per user - in a similar way to editor sessions.

 Are you thinking of "all-pageviews-visited-by-a-certain-user"? If so,
 no we do not have any projects to provide that data as due to privacy
 concerns we neither have nor keep that information.

 Thanks,

 Nuria



 On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Leila Zia  wrote:

> + Analytics
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 6:36 AM, Marc Miquel 
> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have a question for you regarding pageviews datadumps.
>>
>> I am considering to study reader engagement for different article
>> topics in different languages. Because of this, I would like to know if
>> there is any plan to make available pageviews dumps detailing activity 
>> log
>> at session level per user - in a similar way to editor sessions.
>>
>> Since this would be for a research project I might ask funding for
>> it, I would like to know if I could count on that, what is the nature of
>> the available data, and what would be the procedure to obtain this data 
>> and
>> if there would be any implication because of privacy concerns.
>>
>> Thank you very much!
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Marc Miquel
>> ᐧ
>>
>> ___
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Analytics mailing list
> analyt...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
>
>
 ___
 Analytics mailing list
 analyt...@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics

>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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
>> 

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Analytics] question about Pageviews dumps

[Marc Miquel]

Thanks for the answer, Oliver. But I am not sure it answers my questions. I'd
like to study aspects like how much time is spent in certain pages, as a
proxy of how content is approached/read/understood. I'd be happy with time
of entering the page, time of leaving. This is not entirely centered on
'user activity', but I said that because I imagined data would be stored in
a similar way to editor sessions, or in a database and I would need to do
the time calculations.

Cheers,

Marc


El dc., 29 juny, 2016 03:11, Oliver Keyes  va escriure:

> If historic data is okay, there's already a dataset released (
> https://figshare.com/articles/Activity_Sessions_datasets/1291033) that
> was designed specifically to answer questions around how to best calculate
> session length with regards to Wikipedia (http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.2878)
>
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Marc Miquel  wrote:
>
>> Hello!
>>
>> I was thinking about user sessions, yes, so this would mean to aggregate
>> pageviews visited by a user during a short amount of time (I should check
>> the cutoff, but it could be around an hour or less).
>>
>> I am particularly interested in understanding the order in which pages
>> are seen (start, end), duration, etc.
>> I wouldn't need data from a long period neither, but I think data from
>> multiple languages would be helpful.
>>
>> I imagined reader data could be sensitive to privacy, but would an NDA
>> with my university and some sort of data encoding help with this? As I
>> said, it is for a scientific purpose.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Marc
>>
>> El dt., 28 juny 2016 a les 21:09, Nuria Ruiz () va
>> escriure:
>>
>>>
>>> Hello!
>>>
>>> >I am considering to study reader engagement for different article
>>> topics in different languages. Because of this, I would like to know if
>>> there is >any plan to make available pageviews dumps detailing activity log
>>> at session level per user - in a similar way to editor sessions.
>>>
>>> Are you thinking of "all-pageviews-visited-by-a-certain-user"? If so, no
>>> we do not have any projects to provide that data as due to privacy concerns
>>> we neither have nor keep that information.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Nuria
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Leila Zia  wrote:
>>>
 + Analytics


 On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 6:36 AM, Marc Miquel 
 wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I have a question for you regarding pageviews datadumps.
>
> I am considering to study reader engagement for different article
> topics in different languages. Because of this, I would like to know if
> there is any plan to make available pageviews dumps detailing activity log
> at session level per user - in a similar way to editor sessions.
>
> Since this would be for a research project I might ask funding for it,
> I would like to know if I could count on that, what is the nature of the
> available data, and what would be the procedure to obtain this data and if
> there would be any implication because of privacy concerns.
>
> Thank you very much!
>
> Best,
>
> Marc Miquel
> ᐧ
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>

 ___
 Analytics mailing list
 analyt...@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics


>>> ___
>>> Analytics mailing list
>>> analyt...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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