Re: [Wiki-research-l] Retention of Wikimedians for the long term

[Kerry Raymond]

I am not sure why Twinkle would have that effect. It's really only if you 
revert their contributions that Twinkle offers you the warning messages. Surely 
reverting with a message with Twinkle is better (or at least no worse) than 
just reverting without a message which was what probably happened pre-Twinkle. 
The expectation of citations introduced at that time seems to me to be the more 
likely cause and probably did lead to more reverts, regardless of whether that 
was done with or without Twinkle.

I think reverting is most damaging to onboarding newbies; surely a message 
which explains the reason is helpful if they want to try again. It also opens 
up a communication channel with another person if they want to ask for help. I 
think on the downside is that the communication channel that it opens (Talk) is 
not a mode of communication the newbie may be comfortable to use (it's the same 
wiki text that they probably found difficult to use in the article). I have 
long believed that we should be offering an email interface to the newbie as an 
alternative to Talk in the hope they are more familiar with it.

But I think we are straying here from the topic of trying to engage those who 
have survived the newbie phase, with whom we would like to to collaborate more 
closely and continue to upskill within some trajectory of interest to them.

Kerry

Sent from my iPad

> On 23 Feb 2017, at 12:59 am, Amir E. Aharoni  
> wrote:
> 
> I actually suspect that Twinkle is ones of the causes of the famous 
> flattening of the growth that happened in 2007. Twinkle was introduced around 
> the same time. Telling new people they are doing something wrong became too 
> easy, and sticking around became less fun. Though operated by humans, Twinkle 
> is almost the same as a bot.
> 
> בתאריך 22 בפבר׳ 2017 17:36,‏ "Kerry Raymond"  כתב:
>> I agree that we appreciate personal praise over automatically-generated 
>> praise. But I think the Twinkle approach is a good middle ground. I welcome 
>> new users and IPs all the time but use Twinkle to automate the task, but it 
>> still comes from me, a real user who has seen their contribution, and I do 
>> stand willing to help them as the automated message says. This is why I say 
>> to build the tools that let projects etc identify likely candidates but the 
>> message (automated or not) must come from a user genuinely willing to assist 
>> with bringing the new user into the group and its activities (onboarding).
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> 
>>> On 22 Feb 2017, at 10:40 am, David Goodman  wrote:
>>> 
>>> what mattered to me was personal appreciation of my work--just as it did in 
>>> my primary career. Not form notices, but  individual public comments that 
>>> from people who showed that they understood. There is no way of automating 
>>> that. The virtues of wikiprojects  (and local meetups) is of extending that 
>>> appreciation more broadly and more intensely.  
>>> 
 On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:17 PM, Pine W  wrote:
 Hi Gerard,
 
 I am cautiously optimistic that Wikipedia is sustainable for the long 
 term. (If I was not, I would not be here.) The nature and number of 
 contributors may continue to shift over time; perhaps someday there will 
 be so few volunteers in certain areas of running Wikipedia (Arbcom comes 
 to mind as a particularly demanding, thankless, high-stress role for which 
 I do not ever think I will volunteer) that WMF will have little choice but 
 to pay people at least stipends for the work to get done in a timely and 
 reasonably high quality manner. But I am cautiously optimistic about the 
 quality of many of the volunteers that we do have. Also, I am cautiously 
 optimistic that we can *improve* both the quality and quantity of those 
 volunteers, as well as the quantity and quality of the participants in 
 education, GLAM, and affiliate programs related to Wikimedia.
 
 I have observed that criticizing the admins as a group is somewhat common. 
 While I have met a few admins that I would consider removing from office 
 if I had the choice, I have also met several admins who do their jobs 
 competently, helpfully, and tactfully. I'd like to see more of the good 
 and less of the bad, and I think that there are actions that can be taken 
 to encourage that, for the admin corps and for the Wikimedia population in 
 general. The situation will never be perfect, but we can make small course 
 adjustments over time that may have a positive long-term cumulative effect.
 
 Pine
 
 
 
 Pine
 
 
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Gerard Meijssen 
>  wrote:
> Hoi,
> What you call a career I call a dead end. What I find is that all too 
> often these careermen (typically) insist on their 

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Journal of Wiki Studies

[Ziko van Dijk]

It would be great to have a journal of this kind; I wonder about the
description so far, whether it could be explained more systematically what
wiki studies are supposed to be. I am busy with this question right now.
Kind regards
Ziko

2017-02-22 16:00 GMT+01:00 Jaqen :

> In fact in June Bob Cummings announced here he was starting the journal ;)
>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/
> 2016-June/005253.html
>
> Jaqen
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Piotr Konieczny  wrote:
>
>> I just got an email soliciting submissions to new, open source "Journal
>> of Wiki Studies".
>>
>> I didn't see anything about this on this list yet, so...
>>
>> See http://wikistudies.org/index.php?journal=wikistudies=index
>>
>>
>> --
>> Piotr Konieczny, PhD
>> http://hanyang.academia.edu/PiotrKonieczny
>> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=gdV8_AEJ
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Piotrus
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Retention of Wikimedians for the long term

[Pine W]

Following up: Jana and I plan to have an off-list conversation in May about
scheduling a public conversation for June or July. (:

Pine


On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Pine W  wrote:

>
> Jana, would you be willing to have a conversation in June or July about
> your research? I read it awhile ago and I've been pondering how to best
> apply it to ENWP. Perhaps we could have a Hangout meeting? I'd be glad to
> have the meeting be public, in a similar style to a Research office hour,
> because there's no reason that the conversation needs to be private and
> other people might be interested in participating or listening. I'm
> thinking about how I could make use of your research in combination with
> what I'm likely to be doing over the summer with the LearnWiki project.
>
> Pine
>
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Retention of Wikimedians for the long term

[Pine W]

Jana, would you be willing to have a conversation in June or July about
your research? I read it awhile ago and I've been pondering how to best
apply it to ENWP. Perhaps we could have a Hangout meeting? I'd be glad to
have the meeting be public, in a similar style to a Research office hour,
because there's no reason that the conversation needs to be private and
other people might be interested in participating or listening. I'm
thinking about how I could make use of your research in combination with
what I'm likely to be doing over the summer with the LearnWiki project.

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

[Wiki-research-l] SEMANTiCS 2017, Amsterdam, Sep 11-14, Open Calls

[Sebastian Hellmann]

Apologies for cross-posting

Call for Papers, Posters & Workshops
SEMANTiCS 2017 - The Linked Data Conference
13th International Conference on Semantic Systems

Amsterdam, Netherlands
September 11 -14, 2017
http://2017.semantics.cc

For details please go to: https://2017.semantics.cc/calls

Important Dates (Research & Innovation):
*Abstract Submission Deadline:   May 17, 2017 (11:59 pm, Hawaii time)
*Paper Submission Deadline:  May 24, 2017 (11:59 pm, Hawaii time)
*Notification of Acceptance: July 3, 2017 (11:59 pm, Hawaii time)
*Camera-Ready Paper: August 14, 2017 (11:59 pm, Hawaii time)

Important Dates (Workshops & Tutorials):
*Submission of Proposals for Workshops with Call for Papers: March 31, 
2017 (23:59 Hawaii Time)
*Submission of Proposals for Tutorials and Workshops without Call for 
Papers: June 30, 2017 (23:59 Hawaii Time)
*Workshop Proposals Notification of Acceptance: April 13, 2017 (23:59 
Hawaii Time)

*Workshop Website/Call for Papers Online: April 30, 2017 (23:59 Hawaii Time)
*Workshop Camera-Ready Proceedings:  September 4, 2017 (23:59 Hawaii Time)
*SEMANTiCS 2017 Workshop & Tutorial Days: September 11 and 14, 2017

As in the previous years, SEMANTiCS’17 proceedings will be published by 
ACM ICPS (pending) and CEUR WS proceedings.


SEMANTiCS 2017 will especially welcome submissions for the following hot 
topics:

*Data Science (special track, see below)
*Web Semantics, Linked (Open) Data & schema.org
*Corporate Knowledge Graphs
*Knowledge Integration and Language Technologies
*Data Quality Management
*Economics of Data, Data Services and Data Ecosystems

Following the success of previous years, the ‘horizontals’ (research) 
and ‘verticals’ (industries) below are of interest for the conference:


Horizontals:
*Enterprise Linked Data & Data Integration
*Knowledge Discovery & Intelligent Search
*Business Models, Governance & Data Strategies
*Semantics in Big Data
*Text Analytics
*Data Portals & Knowledge Visualization
*Semantic Information Management
*Document Management & Content Management
*Terminology, Thesaurus & Ontology Management
*Smart Connectivity, Networking & Interlinking
*Smart Data & Semantics in IoT
*Semantics for IT Safety & Security
*Semantic Rules, Policies & Licensing
*Community, Social & Societal Aspects

Data Science Special Track Horizontals:
*Large-Scale Data Processing (stream processing, handling large-scale 
graphs)

*Data Analytics (Machine Learning, Predictive Analytics, Network Analytics)
*Communicating Data (Data Visualization, UX & Interaction Design, 
Crowdsourcing)

*Cross-cutting Issues (Ethics, Privacy, Security, Provenance)

Verticals:
*Industry & Engineering
*Life Sciences & Health Care
*Public Administration
*e-Science
*Digital Humanities
*Galleries, Libraries, Archives & Museums (GLAM)
*Education & eLearning
*Media & Data Journalism
*Publishing, Marketing & Advertising
*Tourism & Recreation
*Financial & Insurance Industry
*Telecommunication & Mobile Services
*Sustainable Development: Climate, Water, Air, Ecology
*Energy, Smart Homes & Smart Grids
*Food, Agriculture & Farming
*Safety, Security & Privacy
*Transport, Environment & Geospatial

For call details please go to: https://2017.semantics.cc/calls


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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Retention of Wikimedians for the long term

[Amir E. Aharoni]

I actually suspect that Twinkle is ones of the causes of the famous
flattening of the growth that happened in 2007. Twinkle was introduced
around the same time. Telling new people they are doing something wrong
became too easy, and sticking around became less fun. Though operated by
humans, Twinkle is almost the same as a bot.

בתאריך 22 בפבר׳ 2017 17:36,‏ "Kerry Raymond"  כתב:

> I agree that we appreciate personal praise over automatically-generated
> praise. But I think the Twinkle approach is a good middle ground. I welcome
> new users and IPs all the time but use Twinkle to automate the task, but it
> still comes from me, a real user who has seen their contribution, and I do
> stand willing to help them as the automated message says. This is why I say
> to build the tools that let projects etc identify likely candidates but the
> message (automated or not) must come from a user genuinely willing to
> assist with bringing the new user into the group and its activities
> (onboarding).
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 22 Feb 2017, at 10:40 am, David Goodman  wrote:
>
> what mattered to me was personal appreciation of my work--just as it did
> in my primary career. Not form notices, but  individual public comments
> that from people who showed that they understood. There is no way of
> automating that. The virtues of wikiprojects  (and local meetups) is of
> extending that appreciation more broadly and more intensely.
>
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:17 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>
>> Hi Gerard,
>>
>> I am cautiously optimistic that Wikipedia is sustainable for the long
>> term. (If I was not, I would not be here.) The nature and number of
>> contributors may continue to shift over time; perhaps someday there will be
>> so few volunteers in certain areas of running Wikipedia (Arbcom comes to
>> mind as a particularly demanding, thankless, high-stress role for which I
>> do not ever think I will volunteer) that WMF will have little choice but to
>> pay people at least stipends for the work to get done in a timely and
>> reasonably high quality manner. But I am cautiously optimistic about the
>> quality of many of the volunteers that we do have. Also, I am cautiously
>> optimistic that we can *improve* both the quality and quantity of those
>> volunteers, as well as the quantity and quality of the participants in
>> education, GLAM, and affiliate programs related to Wikimedia.
>>
>> I have observed that criticizing the admins as a group is somewhat
>> common. While I have met a few admins that I would consider removing from
>> office if I had the choice, I have also met several admins who do their
>> jobs competently, helpfully, and tactfully. I'd like to see more of the
>> good and less of the bad, and I think that there are actions that can be
>> taken to encourage that, for the admin corps and for the Wikimedia
>> population in general. The situation will never be perfect, but we can make
>> small course adjustments over time that may have a positive long-term
>> cumulative effect.
>>
>> Pine
>>
>>
>>
>> Pine
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
>> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hoi,
>>> What you call a career I call a dead end. What I find is that all too
>>> often these careermen (typically) insist on their superiority and point of
>>> view. It results in a bias that has people say that it takes 10 sources
>>> even for something like a stub, it negates notability as it is not as they
>>> see it; consequently the sum of all knowledge is not served well. I also
>>> find that it has ossified what we do and the result is that we know
>>> arguments as what we do and not what we have.
>>>
>>> What you call a career, I see as a dead end. There are enough things
>>> that can be done that do help us along but the admin side you promote is
>>> hardly healthy.
>>> Thanks,
>>>GerardM
>>>
>>>
>>> Op di 21 feb. 2017 om 02:34 schreef Pine W 
>>>
 Hi Kerry,

 Thanks for the ideas. Jonathan Morgan, Aaron Halfaker, and I have had
 more than one conversation about wikiprojects as a way to engage with new
 editors. Unfortunately, there are a lot of derelict wikiprojects.

 I have some ideas about how to improve the training system for ENWP and
 Commons in particular. But that's different from the motivation issue,
 which I think is more challenging. With enough money and time, the training
 system can be upgraded. I'm not sure if the same is true for motivation. I
 have the impression that student Wikimedians are mostly motivated by grades
 (hence the precipitous decline in their participation after their Wikipedia
 Education Program class ends), and many other people are motivated by money
 or PR (hence we get a lot of people engaging in promotionalism or PR
 management.) It's not clear to me how someone goes from being wiki-curious
 to feeling 

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Retention of Wikimedians for the long term

[Kerry Raymond]

Agreed. Here we are dealing with sufficiently motivated users (for whatever 
reason they have survived the newbie phase). Here we use the triggers to praise 
(to hopefully increase motivation) and offer to increase their ability, usually 
by drawing them into some specialised community/activity.

Sent from my iPad

> On 21 Feb 2017, at 10:14 pm, Ward Cunningham  wrote:
> 
> I am reminded of B.J.Fogg's notion of triggers as one of three requisites for 
> behavior. The other two are motivation and ability. 
> 
> http://www.behaviormodel.org/
> 
> This is probably old news on this list as he has been explaining his work for 
> a long time now. Still, any initiative should be analyzed in his terms before 
> launch.
> 
> Best regards -- Ward
> 
> 
>> On Feb 20, 2017, at 7:24 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>> 
>> Hmm. Integrating "push notifications" into training, as well as using them 
>> for recognition and suggestions for skill development, sounds like a good 
>> idea. Thanks for the suggestion!
>> 
>> Pine
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 7:16 PM, Stuart A. Yeates  wrote:
>> I have thought about writing a bot that congratulated active users on 
>> account creation anniversaries and suggested directions for growth.
>> "Grats X you've been editing for 2 years, here's a picture of a kitten. Have 
>> you thought about doing New Page Patrol?"
>> 
>> "Grats Y you've been editing for a decade, here's a virtual beer, you've 
>> earned it! Have you thought about applying for adminship?"
>> 
>> Of course, you'd want to check account account behaviour pretty carefully 
>> first.
>> 
>> cheers
>> stuart
>> 
>> --
>> ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
>> 
>> On 21 February 2017 at 14:33, Pine W  wrote:
>> Hi Kerry,
>> 
>> Thanks for the ideas. Jonathan Morgan, Aaron Halfaker, and I have had more 
>> than one conversation about wikiprojects as a way to engage with new 
>> editors. Unfortunately, there are a lot of derelict wikiprojects.
>> 
>> I have some ideas about how to improve the training system for ENWP and 
>> Commons in particular. But that's different from the motivation issue, which 
>> I think is more challenging. With enough money and time, the training system 
>> can be upgraded. I'm not sure if the same is true for motivation. I have the 
>> impression that student Wikimedians are mostly motivated by grades (hence 
>> the precipitous decline in their participation after their Wikipedia 
>> Education Program class ends), and many other people are motivated by money 
>> or PR (hence we get a lot of people engaging in promotionalism or PR 
>> management.) It's not clear to me how someone goes from being wiki-curious 
>> to feeling motivated enough to contribute for years. There are many other 
>> hobbies that are lower stress, healthier, offer more opportunities for 
>> socializing, and offer a friendlier environment. I think that some 
>> Wikimedians are motivated by desire to promote or share their interest in a 
>> particular topic, which might keep content creators interested and engaged 
>> for years, particularly if they meet people with similar interests. But it's 
>> a phase change to go from being a content creator or curator, to taking on 
>> roles that benefit other individual Wikimedians, or broad cross-sections of 
>> the Wikimedia community. We could use all of those kinds of good-faith 
>> long-term contributors.
>> 
>> Perhaps we should include information in our training about "career paths" 
>> for Wikimedians who would like to develop their skills and/or move into new 
>> roles? 
>> 
>> I'm not sure what else to suggest. I find it challenging to figure out how 
>> to motivate people to want to contribute productively for years, and there 
>> are some roles for which lengthy experience is an informal but significant 
>> prerequisite for acceptance and/or success. I'd like to see more people make 
>> that journey.
>> 
>> Pine
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Kerry Raymond  
>> wrote:
>> Pine,
>> 
>> It sounds to me that there are two separate parts to your question.
>> 
>> One relates to the survival of such editors to being ongoing active editors. 
>> The second seems to relate to recruiting them and perhaps upskilling them 
>> for specific purposes, eg administration, guild of copy editors, and 
>> whatever initiatives you have in mind.
>> 
>> The first question probably relates to being able to get them better 
>> informed about the policies of Wikipedia at least in relation to the area of 
>> their contributions and how to engage with the community because it is the 
>> abrasive interaction with the community that seems to drive people away.
>> 
>> The second probably relates to raising awareness of WikiProjects and other 
>> collaborative initiatives. (Obviously all of WP is collaborative, but some 
>> things require higher levels of coordination and I think this might be what 

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Journal of Wiki Studies

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

from the editorial board it seems to be a very local initiative, but I
welcome it and hope it will grow bigger soon!

dj

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Piotr Konieczny  wrote:

> I just got an email soliciting submissions to new, open source "Journal of
> Wiki Studies".
>
> I didn't see anything about this on this list yet, so...
>
> See http://wikistudies.org/index.php?journal=wikistudies=index
>
>
> --
> Piotr Konieczny, PhD
> http://hanyang.academia.edu/PiotrKonieczny
> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=gdV8_AEJ
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Piotrus
>
>
> ___
> 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

[Wiki-research-l] Journal of Wiki Studies

[Piotr Konieczny]

I just got an email soliciting submissions to new, open source "Journal 
of Wiki Studies".


I didn't see anything about this on this list yet, so...

See http://wikistudies.org/index.php?journal=wikistudies=index


--
Piotr Konieczny, PhD
http://hanyang.academia.edu/PiotrKonieczny
http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=gdV8_AEJ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Piotrus


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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Retention of Wikimedians for the long term

[Piotr Konieczny]

I have a paper on why long-term contributors retire, but it is still in 
review. If you or anyone else would like a copy, do send me an email and 
I'll send you the draft.


--


Piotr Konieczny, PhD
http://hanyang.academia.edu/PiotrKonieczny
http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=gdV8_AEJ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Piotrus

On 2/21/2017 4:49 AM, Pine W wrote:

Hi Research-l,

A human resources problem that I am experiencing is a shortage of 
human resources of community members who are willing, available, and 
have the skills to work on a variety of useful initiatives. Is anyone 
on this list aware of research that talks about motivations of 
long-term contributors? In particular, I'd be interested in research 
that suggests ways to convert productive, relatively new editors (say, 
50-500 edits) into long-term community members who are likely to 
develop into long-term, productive Wikimedians.


Thanks,

Pine


___
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] Retention of Wikimedians for the long term

[Jane Darnell]

It should be possible to inform Commons uploaders if their images are used
on Wikipedia, and include the language. This would be especially helpful
for Commons uploading contests such as Wiki Loves Monuments

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Amir E. Aharoni <
amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:

>
> 2017-02-21 17:56 GMT+02:00 Melody Kramer (ET) :
>
>
>> Another fun experiment: a blood bank in Sweden texts donors to thank them
>> after donating, and then AGAIN when the blood is actually used:
>> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/blood-donors-
>> in-sweden-get-a-text-message-whenever-someone-is-helped-
>> with-their-blood-10310101.html
>>
>> So basically, they're reminding people of how their contribution is used.
>>
>>
>>
> Ohhh, thank you so much for this example. How I wish we did more of
> that :/
>
> As a volunteer I've been translating strings for MediaWiki and its
> extensions for over eight years, and I get a happiness shot every time I
> see my string used on the live site. It still excites me after thousands of
> strings just as it did the first time in 2009.
>
> I wish we told people that the article they wrote was read by X people,
> for example (WordPress.com and Quora do it nicely). Or to tell them that it
> was translated to other languages (our team plans to do it as part of
> Content Translation, but it wasn't done yet).
>
> When I get code patches from volunteers, I try to notify them when their
> fix goes live on wikipedia.org or if it helped solving another problem
> (e.g. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T106632#3042650 ), but I don't do
> it systematically enough, and it's certainly not a process that everybody
> follows.
>
> We really need to do it.
>
> --
> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
> http://aharoni.wordpress.com
> ‪“We're living in pieces,
> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
>
> ___
> 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] Finding the number of links between two wikipedia pages

[Mara Sorella]

Hi Giuseppe, Ward

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Giuseppe Profiti 
wrote:

> 2017-02-19 20:56 GMT+01:00 Mara Sorella :
> > Hi everybody, I'm new to the list and have been referred here by a
> comment
> > from a SO user as per my question [1], that I'm quoting next:
> >
> >
> > I have been successfully able to use the Wikipedia pagelinks SQL dump to
> > obtain hyperlinks between Wikipedia pages for a specific revision time.
> >
> > However, there are cases where multiple instances of such links exist,
> e.g.
> > the very same https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia page and
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation. I'm interested to
> find
> > number of links between pairs of pages for a specific revision.
> >
> > Ideal solutions would involve dump files other than pagelinks (which I'm
> not
> > aware of), or using the MediaWiki API.
> >
> >
> >
> > To elaborate, I need this information to weight (almost) every hyperlink
> > between article pages (that is, in NS0), that was present in a specific
> > wikipedia revision (end of 2015), therefore, I would prefer not to follow
> > the solution suggested by the SO user, that would be rather impractical.
>
> Hi Mara,
> Mediawiki API does not return the multiplicity of the links [1]. As
> far as I can see from the database layout, you can't get the
> multiplicity of links from it either [2]. The only solution that
> occurs to me is to parse the wikitext of the page, like the SO user
> suggested.
>
> In any case, some communities established writing styles that
> discourage multiple links towards the same article (i.e. in the
> Italian Wikipedia a link is associated only to the first occurrence of
> the word). Then, the numbers you could get may vary depending on the
> style of the community and/or last editor.
>
Yes, this is a good practice that I noticed being very widespread. Indeed
this would lead the link-multiplicity based weighting approach to fail.
A (costly) option would be inspecting the actual article text (possibly
only the abstract). I guess this can be done starting from the dump files.

@Ward: could your technology be of help for this task?


> >
> > Indeed, my final aim is to use this weight in a thresholding fashion to
> > sparsify the wikipedia graph (that due to the short diameter is more or
> less
> > a giant connected component), in a way that should reflect the
> "relatedness"
> > of the linked pages (where relatedness is not intended as strictly
> semantic,
> > but at a higher "concept" level, if I may say so).
> > For this reason, other suggestions on how determine such weights
> (possibly
> > using other data sources -- ontologies?) are more than welcome.
>
> When you get the graph of connections, instead of using the
> multiplicity as weight, you could try to use community detection
> methods to isolate subclusters of strongly connected articles.
> Another approach my be to use centrality measures, however the only
> one that can be applied to edges instead of just nodes is betweenness
> centrality, if I remember correctly.
>

Currently, I resorted to keep only reciprocal links, but I still get quite
big connected components (despite the fact that I'm actually carrying out a
temporal analysis, where I consider, for each time instant, only pages
exhibiting an unusually high traffic).
Concerning community detection techniques/centrality: I discarded them
because I don't want to "impose" connectedness (reachability) at the
subgraph level, but only between single entities (since my algorithm aims
to find some sort of temporally persistent subgraphs having some
properties).


> In case of a fast technical solution may come to mind, I'll write here
> again.
>
> Best,
> Giuseppe
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query=links;
> titles=Wikipedia=0=500=Wikimedia_Foundation
> [2] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/MediaWik
> i_1.28.0_database_schema.svg
>
>
Thank you both for your feedback!

Best,

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Retention of Wikimedians for the long term

[Amir E. Aharoni]

2017-02-21 17:56 GMT+02:00 Melody Kramer (ET) :


> Another fun experiment: a blood bank in Sweden texts donors to thank them
> after donating, and then AGAIN when the blood is actually used:
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/blood-
> donors-in-sweden-get-a-text-message-whenever-someone-is-
> helped-with-their-blood-10310101.html
>
> So basically, they're reminding people of how their contribution is used.
>
>
>
Ohhh, thank you so much for this example. How I wish we did more of
that :/

As a volunteer I've been translating strings for MediaWiki and its
extensions for over eight years, and I get a happiness shot every time I
see my string used on the live site. It still excites me after thousands of
strings just as it did the first time in 2009.

I wish we told people that the article they wrote was read by X people, for
example (WordPress.com and Quora do it nicely). Or to tell them that it was
translated to other languages (our team plans to do it as part of Content
Translation, but it wasn't done yet).

When I get code patches from volunteers, I try to notify them when their
fix goes live on wikipedia.org or if it helped solving another problem
(e.g. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T106632#3042650 ), but I don't do
it systematically enough, and it's certainly not a process that everybody
follows.

We really need to do it.

--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Retention of Wikimedians for the long term

[Ed Saperia]

Here's an analysis of editor retention by an experienced game designer, from 
Wikimania 2014 - maybe a useful alternative perspective: 
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XwHH6935o00=ANyPxKoZi0X3rcWLT3K4m0QxTsbLXm4Wcj0gOSoEBSPW2_DU4u4VBVCwMd0_8bX-f6IuzJPTfGkf

Sent from my iPhone

> On 22 Feb 2017, at 08:25, Stuart A. Yeates  wrote:
> 
>> On 22 February 2017 at 16:40, David Goodman  wrote:
>> what mattered to me was personal appreciation of my work--just as it did in 
>> my primary career. Not form notices, but  individual public comments that 
>> from people who showed that they understood. There is no way of automating 
>> that. The virtues of wikiprojects  (and local meetups) is of extending that 
>> appreciation more broadly and more intensely.  
> 
> Automate, no. Encourage, yes.
> 
> I can imagine a tool that located editors working mainly in the area of a 
> wikiproject (i.e. 3/5ths of their last 50 edits over three or more weeks, 
> maybe) who had not had much recent obvious attention from other editors (no 
> third-party edits to their talk page in that time) and once a week send each 
> person signed up to the wikiproject a notification with a link to encourage 
> the wikiproject participant to give that editor feedback on their work. 
> 
> In short, a private prompt to send a public feedback. 95% of the feedback 
> would probably be positive, but it might also find one or two of the more 
> subtle types of vandal.
> 
> cheers
> stuart
> 
> 
> --
> ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
>  
> ___
> 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] Retention of Wikimedians for the long term

[Stuart A. Yeates]

On 22 February 2017 at 16:40, David Goodman  wrote:

> what mattered to me was personal appreciation of my work--just as it did
> in my primary career. Not form notices, but  individual public comments
> that from people who showed that they understood. There is no way of
> automating that. The virtues of wikiprojects  (and local meetups) is of
> extending that appreciation more broadly and more intensely.
>

Automate, no. Encourage, yes.

I can imagine a tool that located editors working mainly in the area of a
wikiproject (i.e. 3/5ths of their last 50 edits over three or more weeks,
maybe) who had not had much recent obvious attention from other editors (no
third-party edits to their talk page in that time) and once a week send
each person signed up to the wikiproject a notification with a link to
encourage the wikiproject participant to give that editor feedback on their
work.

In short, a private prompt to send a public feedback. 95% of the feedback
would probably be positive, but it might also find one or two of the more
subtle types of vandal.

cheers
stuart


--
...let us be heard from red core to black sky
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l