Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki Workshop Announcement and Call for Papers

2017-01-25 Thread Leila Zia 
[Apologies for cross-posting]


Hi all,


In response to several requests, we have extended the submission deadline
for the Wiki Workshop @ WWW 2017  by one week. It
is now on *January 31, 2017* (end of day anywhere on Earth).


Note that this deadline applies only if authors want their contribution to
appear as part of the conference proceedings. If they don't want their
contribution to appear in the proceedings, they should submit to the later
deadline (February 26, 2017).



*We emphasize that we explicitly encourage the submission of preliminary
work in the form of extended abstracts (1 or 2 pages).*


We look forward to your submissions! If you have any further questions,
don't hesitate to contact us at wikiworks...@googlegroups.com.


Robert West, EPFL

Leila Zia, Wikimedia Foundation

Dario Taraborelli, Wikimedia Foundation

Jure Leskovec, Stanford University

--
Wiki Workshop 2017

Held at *WWW 2017* (International World Wide Web Conference), Perth,
Australia, April 4, 2017


Workshop webpage:

http://www.wikiworkshop.org
CALL FOR CONTRIBUTIONS

The goal of this workshop is to bring together researchers exploring all
aspects of Wikimedia websites such as Wikipedia, Wikidata, and Commons.
With members of the Wikimedia Foundation's Research team on the organizing
committee and with the experience of successful workshops in 2015
 and 2016
, we aim to continue
facilitating a direct pathway for exchanging ideas between the organization
that operates Wikimedia websites and the researchers interested in studying
them.

Topics of interest include, but are not limited to

   - new technologies and initiatives to grow content, quality, diversity,
   and participation across Wikimedia projects
   - use of bots, algorithms, and crowdsourcing strategies to curate,
   source, or verify content and structured data
   - bias in content and gaps of knowledge
   - diversity of Wikimedia editors and users
   - understanding editor motivations, engagement models, and incentives
   - Wikimedia consumer motivations and their needs: readers, researchers,
   tool/API developers
   - innovative uses of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects for AI and
   NLP applications
   - consensus-finding and conflict resolution on editorial issues
   - participation in discussions and their dynamics
   - dynamics of content reuse across projects and the impact of policies
   and community norms on reuse
   - privacy
   - collaborative content creation (unstructured, semi-structured, or
   structured)
   - collaborative task management
   - innovative uses of Wikimedia projects' content and consumption
   patterns as sensors for real-world events, culture, etc.

Papers should be 1 to 8 pages long and will be published on the workshop
webpage and optionally (depending on the authors' choice) in the workshop
proceedings. Authors whose papers are accepted to the workshop will have
the opportunity to participate in a poster session.

We explicitly encourage the submission of preliminary work in the form of
extended abstracts (1 or 2 pages).
KEY DATES

If authors want paper to appear in proceedings:

   - Submission deadline: *January 31, 2017* (end of day anywhere on Earth)
   - Author feedback: February 7, 2017
   - Camera-ready version due: February 14, 2017

If authors *do not* want paper to appear in proceedings:

   - Submission deadline: *February 26, 2017*
   - Author feedback: March 7, 2017

Please see workshop webpage for formatting and submission instructions.
ORGANIZATION

Robert West, EPFL

Leila Zia, Wikimedia Foundation

Dario Taraborelli, Wikimedia Foundation

Jure Leskovec, Stanford University
CONTACT

Please direct your questions to wikiworks...@googlegroups.com

Leila Zia
Senior Research Scientist
Wikimedia Foundation

On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 11:57 PM, Leila Zia  wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> Following the successful experience of the last two years, we are
> organizing another Wiki Workshop in 2017, this time as part of WWW2017
>  in Perth (Yes! We're coming to Australia.:),
> on April 3 or 4 (exact date to be determined).
>
> You can read more about the call for papers and the workshops at
> http://snap.stanford.edu/wikiworkshop2017. Please note that the deadline
> for the submissions to be considered for proceedings is January 24. All
> other submissions should be received by February 26.
>
> If you have questions about the workshop, please let us know on this list
> or at wikiworks...@googlegroups.com.
>
> Looking forward to seeing you in Perth.
>
> Best,
> Leila, on behalf of the organizers
>
> --
> Leila Zia
> Senior Research Scientist
> 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] Request: Studies of external impacts of Wikipedia

2017-01-25 Thread Jonathan Morgan 
Following up on Fabian's suggestions, I put together a lit review

last year of the use of Wikipedia by a few different populations (focusing
on students), which includes the Head and Eisenberg paper.

- J

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 5:01 AM, Flöck, Fabian 
wrote:

> I do not know of directly measured social or economical impact, but there
> are at least some indicators of the dependency on Wikipedia as a free
> information source for modern societies and professions, maybe that helps:
>
> • A. Head and M. Eisenberg. How college students use the web to
> conduct everyday life research. First Monday, 16(4), 2011. ISSN 13960466.
> URL http://firstmonday.org/ojs/ index.php/fm/article/view/3484. For
> decision making: “...turning to search engines and Wikipedia almost as much
> as they did to friends and family”
> • K.-S. Kim, E. Yoo-Lee, and S.-C. Joanna Sin. Social media as
> information source: Undergraduates’ use and evaluation behavior.
> Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,
> 48(1):1–3, 2011.
> • J. Beck. Doctors’ #1 source for healthcare information:
> Wikipedia. The Atlantic, 2014. URL http://www.theatlantic.com/
> health/archive/2014/03/doctors%2D1%2Dsource%2Dfor%
> 2Dhealthcare%2Dinformation%2Dwikipedia/284206/.
>
> General population:
>
> "As of May 2010, 53% of American internet users look for information on
> Wikipedia, up from 36% of internet users the first time we asked about
> Wikipedia usage in February 2007". (http://www.pewinternet.org/
> 2011/01/13/wikipedia-past-and-present/ ; sadly, there doesn’t seem to be
> a newer version of that poll available)
>
> 42% used Wikipedia at least once a week in 2016 in Germany:
> http://www.ard-zdf-onlinestudie.de/index.php?id=559 (n=1508 German
> speakers, representative for the German population) and it has been
> increasing quite steadily from 2007 (20%) until 2013 (32%)
> http://www.ard-zdf-onlinestudie.de/fileadmin/Onlinestudie/PDF/Eimeren_
> Frees.pdf , page 7 (“zumindest einmal wöchentlich”), for “at least
> sometimes” it’s up to around 70%
>
> Best,
>
> Fabian
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 24.01.2017, at 23:19, Aaron Halfaker  wrote:
> >
> > Wikipedia has probably had some substantial external impacts.  Are there
> any studies quantifying them?  Maybe increased scientific literacy?  Or
> maybe GDP rises with access to Wikipedia?
> >
> > Are there any studies that have explored how Wikipedia has affected
> economic or social issues?
> >
> > I'm looking for any references you've got.
> >
> > -Aaron
> > ___
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
>
>
> Gruß,
> Fabian
>
> —
> Dr. Fabian Flöck
> Researcher
> Computational Social Science department
> GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences
> Unter Sachsenhausen 6-8, 50667 Cologne, Germany
> Tel: + 49 (0) 221-47694-208
> fabian.flo...@gesis.org
>
> www.gesis.org
> www.facebook.com/gesis.org
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Time Between edits - difference between RevisionID and {{NUMBEROFEDITS}}

2017-01-25 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo) 
Statistics of total (content) edit rate are also available on WikiStats 
at https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesDatabaseEdits.htm etc.


Edit and revert trends charts tend to be more useful: 
https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/PlotsPngEditHistoryTop.htm


WereSpielChequers, 25/01/2017 16:10:

One area that perhaps someone on this list can explain is the difference
between number of edits as measured by revisionID and as measured by
NUMBEROFEDITS


{{NUMBEROFEDITS}} and other magic words, just like Special:Statistics, 
should be assumed to be cached and not necessarily current or correct. 
They shouldn't be relied upon for any serious usage, except perhaps 
after a successful run of initSiteStats.php --update .


That said, both {{NUMBEROFEDITS}} and the total number of edits in 
Special:Statistics are supposed to count the number of revisions, 
included deleted ones.




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] Wiki-research-l Digest, Vol 137, Issue 25

2017-01-25 Thread Misha Teplitskiy 
Hi folks,
Re: Wikipedia and scientific literacy/information diffusion, perhaps this
is relevant:
"Amplifying the impact of open access: Wikipedia and the diffusion of
science"
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23687/full

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:00 AM, <
wiki-research-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Send Wiki-research-l mailing list submissions to
> wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> wiki-research-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wiki-research-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wiki-research-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Request: Studies of external impacts  of  Wikipedia
>   (Leigh Thelmadatter)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 09:47:22 +
> From: Leigh Thelmadatter <osama...@hotmail.com>
> To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> <wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Request: Studies of external impacts of
> Wikipedia
> Message-ID:
> <BY2PR05MB648575FA7328F35806506FBCD740@BY2PR05MB648.
> namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> This is an area I am interested in also. I run two groups of Mexican
> students who work with Wiki project for their "servicio social," a
> community service requirement for all Mexican undergrads. There was some
> question this semester as to whether the program should continue as they
> were looking for evidence of "social impact"... which they were defining as
> students having direct contact with beneficiares (think reading to children
> or serving food at a soup kitchen). We did convince the powers-that-be that
> while there may not be face-to-face, we can provide numbers as to how many
> people access the materials that students create/improve (but cannot break
> it down as to how many of those are from Mexico).
>
> 
> From: Wiki-research-l <wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org> on
> behalf of Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 7:23:17 PM
> To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Request: Studies of external impacts of
> Wikipedia
>
> I have a few thoughts.
>
> Thinking financially here: while I'm not aware of studies, the rise of
> Wikipedia coincided with the demise of Encarta. Also, I think that you'd
> want to take into consideration the impacts that Wikipedia has had via its
> appearance in Google search results and in Google's information summary
> panels; I'm sure that Google has reaped substantial financial benefits from
> Wikipedia. (This is a mixed blessing.) You might consider making an
> estimate of how many millions of dollars university and school libraries
> have saved by not purchasing proprietary encyclopedias.
>
> You might consult with WikiProject Medicine and WPMF to learn about the
> public health impacts of their efforts in content development and
> translation efforts, which they seem to think have been substantial in the
> developing world.
>
> I believe that the education folks in WMF and WEF have done some analyses
> of how Wikipedia assignments have may have yielded improved student
> engagement with material than traditional course assignments.
>
> There are probably also financial benefits that others have reaped from
> using open source MediaWiki software. Perhaps the folks in WMF Tech would
> be able to provide some analysis of the benefits of MediaWiki to external
> organizations.
>
> HTH,
>
> Pine
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 2:19 PM, Aaron Halfaker <ahalfa...@wikimedia.org<
> mailto:ahalfa...@wikimedia.org>> wrote:
> Wikipedia has probably had some substantial external impacts.  Are there
> any studies quantifying them?  Maybe increased scientific literacy?  Or
> maybe GDP rises with access to Wikipedia?
>
> Are there any studies that have explored how Wikipedia has affected
> economic or social issues?
>
> I'm looking for any references you've got.
>
> -Aaron
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:Wiki-
> researc...@lists.wikimedia.org>
>

[Wiki-research-l] Time Between edits - difference between RevisionID and {{NUMBEROFEDITS}}

2017-01-25 Thread WereSpielChequers 
One of our longest running sets of stats on Wikipedia is the time between
ten million edits - we now have stats for this over a fifteen year period.

After emailing User:Katalaveno and getting their agreement I have moved
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Katalaveno/TBE=no
to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Time_Between_Edits and am making
a few changes.

One area that perhaps someone on this list can explain is the difference
between number of edits as measured by revisionID and as measured by
NUMBEROFEDITS - the difference is over a hundred million. That is too big a
number for it to be a measure of logged admin actions, unless when you
delete a page it increments number of edits for each revision deleted. It
might be in the right ballpark to give  a measure of edit conflicts, if so
it would be very good to have a measure of something we had thought
unmeasurable.

So I'm wondering if anyone on this list knows the difference between
{{NUMBEROFEDITS}}. and revisionID

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Patriotic editing hypothesis

2017-01-25 Thread Ziko van Dijk 
Hello,

In my 2009 study I have looked at some Wikipedias and compared geographika
articles with regard to the language in question. There is a theoreme by
the socioloinguist Heinz Kloss about the "eigenbezogene Themen", topics,
that are related to the own specific linguistic community.

According to Kloss, a community is mainly interested in its own language,
culture and history, the country / landscape, and also typical crafts.
Kloss argues that there is a relatively rich literature in this language
about these topics, and much less about other topics such as aeroplane
construction.

(I noticed that the university of the Faroe islands, for example, has
courses to educate teachers and also a department for nautica and fishing.
For other subjects you'll have to leave the islands and also your native
language.)

In my comparison I checked briefly whether a language version of Wikipedia
is at least doing well in articles about its own linguistic reagion. For
example, someone who is interested in the Dutch province of Friesland will
find for about equally much information in Frisian Wikipedia and Dutch
Wikipedia. (At least, in 2008/2009.) This was not the case for Corsican and
French Wikipedia, with Corsican Wikipedia being much weaker.

I wouldn't call the phenomenon "patriotic editing" because that implies a
certain intention that the individual contributors might not have. If I
translate Kloss' term, it should be something more like "self related
contributing" or "contents with regard to the own (linguistic)
community/society".

By the way, I don't think that translations from Wikipedia to Wikipedia are
the best way to create good content. An article about Paris in Dutch has to
differ from the article in French, as you have a different readership with
different backgrounds and interests.

Kind regards
Ziko










2017-01-25 8:20 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen :

> Hoi,
> A similar thing can be found when you look at the history of a country.
> Indonesia and Malaysia have much better articles than English Wikipedia. In
> the same way, the content of western nobility is much better served in
> Wikidata than the content for Asian nobility.
>
> This is to be expected.
>
> The point of the original thread is how to measure the effectiveness of a
> chapter. To give a chapter credit for what it does, you will find that
> finding a truth in data is highly problematic when you seek a general rule.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> On 24 January 2017 at 16:27, Peter Ekman  wrote:
>
>> Regarding Kerry Raymond's "Patriotic editing hypothesis", I've done
>> some very simple informal investigation regarding the quality of
>> geographic articles, these are mostly on cities, towns, counties, etc.
>> in en:Wikipedia.  Geographic articles have much lower average quality
>> scores than other subjects (see
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Smallbones/Quality4by4 )
>> With just a small bit of poking around it's obvious that the quality
>> difference between geo articles and the rest is due to geo articles
>> about countries where English is not the native language. A bit more
>> poking and something that should have been really obvious jumps out.
>> French geo articles on FR:Wiki are much better (at least longer) than
>> the corresponding EN:Wiki article; Russian geo articles are much
>> better on RU:Wiki than on EN:Wiki, etc.
>>
>> This is certainly consistent with the "Patriotic editing hypothesis"
>> if we define patriotism by language rather than by borders.  It could
>> be checked out with other language versions e.g. German vs. French;
>> (Finnish, Estonian, Polish, German, or Hungarian, etc.) vs.Russian;
>> Chinese vs. any language.
>>
>> The hypothesis even had a very practical implication - we should
>> translate more geo articles from their native language Wikipedias.
>>
>> Hope this helps,
>> Pete Ekman
>> 
>> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 11:12:58 +1000
>> From: "Kerry Raymond" 
>> To: "'Research into Wikimedia content and communities'"
>> 
>> Subject: [Wiki-research-l] regional KPIs
>> Message-ID: <006701d275df$02016b90$060442b0$@gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> As previously came up in discussion about chapters, it would be very
>> useful
>> to have national data about Wikipedia activities, which can be determined
>> (generally) from IP addresses. Now I understand the privacy argument in
>> relation to logged-in users (not saying I agree with it though in relation
>> to aggregate data). However, can we find a proxy that does not have the
>> privacy considerations.
>>
>>
>>
>> My hypothesis is that national content is predominantly written by users
>> resident in that nation. And that therefore activity on national content
>> can
>> be used as a proxy for national user editing activity.
>>
>>
>>
>> In the case of Australia, we could describe Australian national content in
>>

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Request: Studies of external impacts of Wikipedia

2017-01-25 Thread Flöck , Fabian 
I do not know of directly measured social or economical impact, but there are 
at least some indicators of the dependency on Wikipedia as a free information 
source for modern societies and professions, maybe that helps: 

• A. Head and M. Eisenberg. How college students use the web to conduct 
everyday life research. First Monday, 16(4), 2011. ISSN 13960466. URL 
http://firstmonday.org/ojs/ index.php/fm/article/view/3484. For decision 
making: “...turning to search engines and Wikipedia almost as much as they did 
to friends and family” 
• K.-S. Kim, E. Yoo-Lee, and S.-C. Joanna Sin. Social media as 
information source: Undergraduates’ use and evaluation behavior. Proceedings of 
the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 48(1):1–3, 2011.
• J. Beck. Doctors’ #1 source for healthcare information: Wikipedia. 
The Atlantic, 2014. URL 
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/03/doctors%2D1%2Dsource%2Dfor% 
2Dhealthcare%2Dinformation%2Dwikipedia/284206/. 

General population: 

"As of May 2010, 53% of American internet users look for information on 
Wikipedia, up from 36% of internet users the first time we asked about 
Wikipedia usage in February 2007". 
(http://www.pewinternet.org/2011/01/13/wikipedia-past-and-present/ ; sadly, 
there doesn’t seem to be a newer version of that poll available)

42% used Wikipedia at least once a week in 2016 in Germany: 
http://www.ard-zdf-onlinestudie.de/index.php?id=559 (n=1508 German speakers, 
representative for the German population) and it has been increasing quite 
steadily from 2007 (20%) until 2013 (32%) 
http://www.ard-zdf-onlinestudie.de/fileadmin/Onlinestudie/PDF/Eimeren_Frees.pdf 
, page 7 (“zumindest einmal wöchentlich”), for “at least sometimes” it’s up to 
around 70%

Best, 

Fabian








> On 24.01.2017, at 23:19, Aaron Halfaker  wrote:
> 
> Wikipedia has probably had some substantial external impacts.  Are there any 
> studies quantifying them?  Maybe increased scientific literacy?  Or maybe GDP 
> rises with access to Wikipedia?  
> 
> Are there any studies that have explored how Wikipedia has affected economic 
> or social issues?
> 
> I'm looking for any references you've got.  
> 
> -Aaron
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l




Gruß, 
Fabian

—
Dr. Fabian Flöck
Researcher
Computational Social Science department 
GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences
Unter Sachsenhausen 6-8, 50667 Cologne, Germany
Tel: + 49 (0) 221-47694-208
fabian.flo...@gesis.org
 
www.gesis.org
www.facebook.com/gesis.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] Request: Studies of external impacts of Wikipedia

2017-01-25 Thread fn 


I didn't find much for my review. Page 55 in:

http://www2.compute.dtu.dk/pubdb/views/edoc_download.php/6012/pdf/imm6012.pdf

There is an impact on the encyclopaedia market. :) The downfall of 
Encarta gets attributed to Wikipedia. There is a recent paper from Shane 
Greenstein on the Encarta/Britannica story (not that much about Wikipedia).


http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/Reference%20Wars%20-%20Greenstein_6c4ac193-51eb-4758-a5a6-a4c412261411.pdf


- Finn Aarup Nielsen


On 01/24/2017 11:19 PM, Aaron Halfaker wrote:

Wikipedia has probably had some substantial external impacts.  Are there
any studies quantifying them?  Maybe increased scientific literacy?  Or
maybe GDP rises with access to Wikipedia?

Are there any studies that have explored how Wikipedia has affected
economic or social issues?

I'm looking for any references you've got.

-Aaron


___
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] Request: Studies of external impacts of Wikipedia

2017-01-25 Thread Leigh Thelmadatter 
This is an area I am interested in also. I run two groups of Mexican students 
who work with Wiki project for their "servicio social," a community service 
requirement for all Mexican undergrads. There was some question this semester 
as to whether the program should continue as they were looking for evidence of 
"social impact"... which they were defining as students having direct contact 
with beneficiares (think reading to children or serving food at a soup 
kitchen). We did convince the powers-that-be that while there may not be 
face-to-face, we can provide numbers as to how many people access the materials 
that students create/improve (but cannot break it down as to how many of those 
are from Mexico).


From: Wiki-research-l  on behalf 
of Pine W 
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 7:23:17 PM
To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Request: Studies of external impacts of Wikipedia

I have a few thoughts.

Thinking financially here: while I'm not aware of studies, the rise of 
Wikipedia coincided with the demise of Encarta. Also, I think that you'd want 
to take into consideration the impacts that Wikipedia has had via its 
appearance in Google search results and in Google's information summary panels; 
I'm sure that Google has reaped substantial financial benefits from Wikipedia. 
(This is a mixed blessing.) You might consider making an estimate of how many 
millions of dollars university and school libraries have saved by not 
purchasing proprietary encyclopedias.

You might consult with WikiProject Medicine and WPMF to learn about the public 
health impacts of their efforts in content development and translation efforts, 
which they seem to think have been substantial in the developing world.

I believe that the education folks in WMF and WEF have done some analyses of 
how Wikipedia assignments have may have yielded improved student engagement 
with material than traditional course assignments.

There are probably also financial benefits that others have reaped from using 
open source MediaWiki software. Perhaps the folks in WMF Tech would be able to 
provide some analysis of the benefits of MediaWiki to external organizations.

HTH,

Pine


On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 2:19 PM, Aaron Halfaker 
> wrote:
Wikipedia has probably had some substantial external impacts.  Are there any 
studies quantifying them?  Maybe increased scientific literacy?  Or maybe GDP 
rises with access to Wikipedia?

Are there any studies that have explored how Wikipedia has affected economic or 
social issues?

I'm looking for any references you've got.

-Aaron

___
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] Wiki Workshop @ WWW 2017: deadline extended to January 31, 3017

2017-01-25 Thread Robert West 
Hi all,


In response to several requests, we have extended the submission deadline
for the Wiki Workshop @ WWW 2017 by one week. It is now on *January 31,
2017* (end of day anywhere on Earth).


Note that this deadline applies only if authors want their contribution to
appear as part of the conference proceedings. If they don't want their
contribution to appear in the proceedings, they should submit to the later
deadline (February 26, 2017).



*We emphasize that we explicitly encourage the submission of preliminary
work in the form of extended abstracts (1 or 2 pages).*


We look forward to your submissions! If you have any further questions,
don't hesitate to contact us at wikiworks...@googlegroups.com.


Robert West, EPFL

Leila Zia, Wikimedia Foundation

Dario Taraborelli, Wikimedia Foundation

Jure Leskovec, Stanford University

--
Wiki Workshop 2017

Held at *WWW 2017* (International World Wide Web Conference), Perth,
Australia, April 4, 2017


Workshop webpage:

http://www.wikiworkshop.org
CALL FOR CONTRIBUTIONS

The goal of this workshop is to bring together researchers exploring all
aspects of Wikimedia websites such as Wikipedia, Wikidata, and Commons.
With members of the Wikimedia Foundation's Research team on the organizing
committee and with the experience of successful workshops in 2015
 and 2016
, we aim to continue
facilitating a direct pathway for exchanging ideas between the organization
that operates Wikimedia websites and the researchers interested in studying
them.

Topics of interest include, but are not limited to

   - new technologies and initiatives to grow content, quality, diversity,
   and participation across Wikimedia projects
   - use of bots, algorithms, and crowdsourcing strategies to curate,
   source, or verify content and structured data
   - bias in content and gaps of knowledge
   - diversity of Wikimedia editors and users
   - understanding editor motivations, engagement models, and incentives
   - Wikimedia consumer motivations and their needs: readers, researchers,
   tool/API developers
   - innovative uses of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects for AI and
   NLP applications
   - consensus-finding and conflict resolution on editorial issues
   - participation in discussions and their dynamics
   - dynamics of content reuse across projects and the impact of policies
   and community norms on reuse
   - privacy
   - collaborative content creation (unstructured, semi-structured, or
   structured)
   - collaborative task management
   - innovative uses of Wikimedia projects' content and consumption
   patterns as sensors for real-world events, culture, etc.

Papers should be 1 to 8 pages long and will be published on the workshop
webpage and optionally (depending on the authors' choice) in the workshop
proceedings. Authors whose papers are accepted to the workshop will have
the opportunity to participate in a poster session.

We explicitly encourage the submission of preliminary work in the form of
extended abstracts (1 or 2 pages).
KEY DATES

If authors want paper to appear in proceedings:

   - Submission deadline: *January 31, 2017* (end of day anywhere on Earth)
   - Author feedback: February 7, 2017
   - Camera-ready version due: February 14, 2017

If authors *do not* want paper to appear in proceedings:

   - Submission deadline: *February 26, 2017*
   - Author feedback: March 7, 2017

Please see workshop webpage for formatting and submission instructions.
ORGANIZATION

Robert West, EPFL

Leila Zia, Wikimedia Foundation

Dario Taraborelli, Wikimedia Foundation

Jure Leskovec, Stanford University
CONTACT

Please direct your questions to wikiworks...@googlegroups.com
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l