[Wiki-research-l] FW: [Wikimedia Announcements] WMF Round 1 2014 Individual Engagement Grantees
Forwarding for the benefit of those not on other lists. Individual Engagement Grants have been announced for topics relevant to mobile tech, research, and editor engagement. Congrats to grantees and I hope we see them on these lists. Consider applying in the next round, and visit IdeaLab to propose and discuss ideas! [1] IdeaLab is for everyone, even if you are not personally requesting funding such as if you have an idea and hope that someone else executes it. For more detail about grants funded see [2] Pine (IEGCom member) [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Idealab [2] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/05/30/new-grantees-fresh-perspectives-research-mobile-community-building/ Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2014 11:50:49 -0430 From: hah...@gmail.com To: wikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org; wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimedia Announcements] WMF Round 1 2014 Individual Engagement Grantees Today we're announcing the latest round of Individual Engagement Grantees. These grants from the Wikimedia Foundation support individuals and small teams of Wikimedians to experiment with new ideas aimed at having online impact.[1] This round, the IEG committee recommended and WMF approved 12 projects led by 16 grantees with countless volunteer participants from around the world. For the first time, Individual Engagement Grants are funding mobile app development, Wikipedia research, and projects aimed at improving Wikivoyage and Wiktionary. Introducing Wikimedia's round 1 2014 Individual Engagement Grantees: Making Telugu Content Accessible, led by Santhosh, funded at 104,000 Rupees.[2] Medicine Translation Community Organizing, led by CFCF, funded at $10,000.[3]Open Access Reader, led by Edward Saperia, funded at $6550.[4] Optimizing Wikimedia Category Systems, led by Paul J. Weiss, funded at $9750.[5] Promoting Wikivoyage, led by Tammy Bennert, funded at $600.[6] Pronunciation Recording, led by Rilke with participation from Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV and Infovarius, funded at ?1450.[7]Reimagining Wikipedia Mentorship, led by I JethroBT, Soni, and Gabrielm199, funded at $22,600.[8] Senior Citizens Write Wikipedia, led by Vojtěch Veselý with participation from Vojtěch Dostál, Václav Šulc, and Jan Sokol, funded at 160,000 CZK.[9] Tools for Armenian Wikisource and Beyond, led by Xelgen with participation from HrantKhachatrian and Mahnerak, funded at $7600.[10] The Wikiquiz, led by Addis Wang, Mys 721x, and Ericmetro, funded at $1070.[11] WikiTrack, led by Hari Prasad Nadig, funded at $2500.[12]Women and Wikipedia, led by Amanda Menking, funded at $8075.[13] You can read more about them all on the WMF blog.[14] To everyone who contributed to this round of grants with proposals, ideas, feedback and suggestions: thank you! The next call for proposals opens on 1 September - we look forward to seeing more of your ideas and engagement again soon. Sincerely, Harold HidalgoIndividual Engagement Grants Committee 1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG 2. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Making_telugu_content_accessible 3. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Medicine_Translation_Project_Community_Organizing 4. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Open_Access_Reader 5. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Optimizing_Wikimedia_Category_Systems 6. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Promoting_Wikivoyage 7. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Pronunciation_Recording_(Finish_incomplete_GSoC_project) 8. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Reimagining_Wikipedia_Mentorship 9. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Senior_Citizens_Write_Wikipedia 10. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Tools_for_Armenian_Wikisource_and_beyond 11. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/The_Wikiquiz 12. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/WikiTrack 13. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Women_and_Wikipedia 14. http://blog.wikimedia.org/tag/individual-engagement-grants/ ___ Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
[Wiki-research-l] Wikimedia-l discussion on leadership in Wikimedia
Researchers and EE specialists, your thoughts would be appreciated on this. I started the thread only on Wikimedia-l to keep the discussion consolidated in one place. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-May/071811.html 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] The Economist: Wikipeaks? The popular online encyclopedia must work out what is next
Here's a recent article from The Economist. Some of the reader comments about the article were interesting, especially considering the population that is likely to be reading and commenting about an article in The Economist. http://www.economist.com/news/international/21597959-popular-online-encyclopedia-must-work-out-what-next-wikipeaks 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] Funding research proposals - your input requested by 20 April
Hi all, I just want to +1 Siko's comment here. I'm on IEGCom and I pay attention to discussions on proposal talk pages and in the endorsement sections. Your input makes a difference. Thanks, Pine Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 13:08:29 -0700 From: sboute...@wikimedia.org To: wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wiki-research-l] Funding research proposals - your input requested by 20 April Hi researchers, Some projects that may be of interest to you are currently proposed for Individual Engagement Grants (IEG).[1] Your input is very welcome to help us decide which projects to fund. Please share any comments/questions/feedback you have directly on a proposal's talk page by April 20 2014. There are 4 research proposals:https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Co-Location_Impact_Study https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Women_and_Wikipedia https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Optimizing_Wikimedia_Category_Systems._Phase_1,_Understanding_the_English_Wikipedia_Category_System https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/The_use_of_Wikipedia_by_doctors_for_their_information_needs Why you might want to give input: *We want to encourage research that forwards the movement's ability to solve key problems, and so do you. *Questions and suggestions from people with some related expertise helps improve these projects. *Your comments provide the IEG committee with additional perspectives when they are scoring proposals and making recommendations to WMF starting in late April. *If key questions from potential stakeholders can be publicly addressed before a proposal gets to the WMF approvals stage in May, that saves everyone's time and energy and helps us fund better projects :) Thanks, Siko [1] All proposals are listed here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG#ieg-join -- Siko Bouterse Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. sboute...@wikimedia.org Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Donate or click the edit button today, and help us make it a reality! ___ 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] Notes from the wiki research session at CSCW '14
Hi Dario, Nice report. I have some questions related to the annual survey modules. Does Analytics have any ideas to contribute to how to stabilize and increase the population of active editors and to improve editor gender diversity? There were relevant blog posts at [1] and [2]. I would like to hear how data and analysis of that survey have been used in areas outside of VE development and any other ideas Analytics has about improving population size and gender diversity. Were there any follow ups to the annual editor survey from 2011? A blog post [3] says the survey was anticipated to be annual. There is a page about a 2012 annual survey on Meta [4] but no results are posted and it appears no follow up surveys were completed in 2012 or 2013. [5] Thanks, Pine [1] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/06/29/editor-survey-lack-of-time-and-unpleasant-interactions-hinder-contributions/ [2] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/04/27/nine-out-of-ten-wikipedians-continue-to-be-men/ [3] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/12/07/launching-the-second-annual-wikipedia-editor-survey/ [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_Editor_Survey_2012#Results [5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Projects From: dtarabore...@wikimedia.org Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 17:25:51 -0800 To: analytics-inter...@lists.wikimedia.org; wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wiki-research-l] Notes from the wiki research session at CSCW '14 All, these are highlights from a session the Wikimedia Foundation’s Research Data team hosted at CSCW ’14 in Baltimore. The audience was a group of researchers either working on Wikipedia/Wikimedia-related research projects or interested in learning about opportunities to collaborate with the Foundation. Feel free to get in touch if you have any questions/comments.ContactDario Taraborelli - dario@wikimedia.orgAaron Halfaker - ahalfaker@wikimedia.orgJonathan Morgan - jmor...@wikimedia.org IRC: irc://irc.freenode.net/wikimedia-research (webclient) Mailing list: wiki-research-l (mailing list) ResourcesWe gave a short overview of existing resources of potential interest to Wikipedia/Wikimedia researchers: OAuth allows 3rd-party software to edit Wikipedia on behalf of a Wikipedia editor and it’s a (mostly untapped) opportunity to run experimental research or test new interfaces targeted at Wikipedians. See: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:OAuth#Using_OAuthData portal summarizes data sources that are currently available to researchers and app developers. See: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:DataWikimedia Research Newsletter: A monthly overview reviewing or summarizing recent research (contributions are welcome, please contact Dario if you’re interested in contributing) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter Subject recruitment. Aaron and Dario have managed a process for documenting and vetting subject recruitment occurring on Wikimedia projects. This process was set in place to help resolve the tension between researchers’ need to recruit subjects and editors’ desire to not be bothered. The process involves a public discussion and mentorship in order to ensure that proposed studies that affect editors are well documented, are addressing original questions and do not result in unnecessary disruption of wiki work. This is a service we’ve been providing on a volunteer basis as members of the Research Committee, it’s meant to offer support to researchers but doesn’t eliminate the risk that an account used for recruitment purposes might be blocked by an administrator. IRBs and minors. One of the issues that we discussed is dealing with IRB other ethics boards’ requirements when studies may result in interaction with minors. Aaron ahalfa...@wikimedia.org is willing to discuss the issue with researchers and university staff upon request. Annual survey modules. Interest was expressed in exploring strategies for expanding the annual editor/reader survey with new questions contributed by researchers. At this point (March 2014) we cannot commit to any such project, but in general there is potential for cooperations between WMF and academic researchers in this area. Interested parties should contact Tilman Bayer (tbayer at wikimedia dot org) who has been conducting the last WMF editor survey and can provide information about these surveys (methodology, results, available data etc.) and their calendar. WikiResearch Workshop at CSCW 2015. We discussed planning a workshop for CSCW next year. Anyone who is interested in collaborating, please contact us. Details are TBD, but our general goals include: increase awareness of the public data resources that are availablehighlight research areas that are ripe for investigation, esp. where WMF could benefit from the resultsget a better sense of what kind of data resources (and/or what data formats) researchers would like to havebrainstorm a (lightweight, ethical, practical)
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Preexsiting Researchers on Metrics for Users?
However, measuring productivity by the difference of the times of first and last edits won't do much for those of us who work on pages for hours before pressing the save button and only save once. (: It also doesn't measure time spent on private wikis or discussions on email and IRC, which also are not countable as productivity if you look only at public edit counts and logged actions. I'm assuming that login and logout times on all wikis are not available for research use. If they were there would be privacy issues although mitigation is possible. Pine From: aaron.halfa...@gmail.com Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 17:15:36 -0600 To: wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Preexsiting Researchers on Metrics for Users? I talked to Max on IRC, but I'm pointing here for the lurkers :) I think that measuring labor hours via edit sessions is a great idea and I have python library to help extract sessions from edit histories. See https://bitbucket.org/halfak/mediawiki-utilities. Assuming that you have a list of a user's revisions from the API, using the session extractor to build a set of session start and end timestamps for a user would look like this: from mwutil.lib import sessions # Get your revisions ordered by timestamp# revisions = some API call result events = (rev['user'], rev['timestamp'], rev) for rev in revisions for user, session in sessions.sessions(events): # write out a TSV fileprint \t.join( str(v) for v in[user, len(session), session[0]['timestamp'], session[-1]['timestamp'] )--- On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Klein,Max kle...@oclc.org wrote: Thanks Nemo, I'll re-read that discussion. I think that conversation is where I became tentative of using bytes or edit counts. Aaron, in my own search I also noticed you wrote with Geiger. About counting edit hour and edit sessions. [1] Calculating content persistence is a bit too heavyweight for me right now since I am trying to submit to ACM Web Science in 2 weeks (hose CFP was just on this list). The technique looks great though, and I would like to help support making a WMFlabs tool that can return this measure. It seems like I could calculate approximate edit-hours from just looking at Special:Contributions timestamps. Is that correct? Would you suggest this route? [1] http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/Using_Edit_Sessions_to_Measure_Participation_in_Wikipedia/geiger13using-preprint.pdf Maximilian Klein Wikipedian in Residence, OCLC +17074787023 From: wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Aaron Halfaker aaron.halfa...@gmail.com Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 7:12 AM To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Preexsiting Researchers on Metrics for Users? Hey Max, There's a class of metrics that might be relevant to your purposes. I refer to them as content persistence metrics and wrote up some docs about how they work including an example. See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Content_persistence. I gathered a list of papers below to provide a starting point. I've included links to open access versions where I could. These metrics are a little bit painful to compute due to the computational complexity of diffs, but I have some hardware to throw at the problem and another project that's bringing me in this direction, so I'd be interested in collaborating. Priedhorsky, Reid, et al. Creating, destroying, and restoring value in Wikipedia. Proceedings of the 2007 international ACM conference on Supporting group work. ACM, 2007. http://reidster.net/pubs/group282-priedhorsky.pdf: Describes Persistent word views which is a measure of value added per editor. (IMO, value actualized) B. Thomas Adler, Krishnendu Chatterjee, Luca de Alfaro, Marco Faella, Ian Pye, and Vishwanath Raman. 2008. Assigning trust to Wikipedia content. In Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Wikis (WikiSym '08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, , Article 26 , 12 pages. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.141.2047rep=rep1type=pdf Describes a complex strategy for assigning trustworthiness to content based on implicit review. See http://wikitrust.soe.ucsc.edu/ Halfaker, A., Kittur, A., Kraut, R., Riedl, J. (2009, October). A jury of your peers: quality, experience and ownership in Wikipedia. In Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration (p. 15). ACM. http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/A_Jury_of_Your_Peers/halfaker09jury-personal.pdf Describes the use of Persistent word revisions per word as a measure of article contribution quality. Halfaker, A., Kittur, A., Riedl, J. (2011, October). Don't bite the newbies: how reverts affect the
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Office hour with WMF researchers
Reminder, office hour is happening now. Pine From: deyntest...@hotmail.com To: wikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org; e...@lists.wikimedia.org; wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org; wikitech-annou...@lists.wikimedia.org; wikimedia-...@lists.wikimedia.org CC: analyt...@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Office hour with WMF researchers Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2013 00:15:16 -0700 Hi everyone, WMF researchers have agreed to participate in an office hour. This will be in the same format as the meeting we had in April 2013 with researcher introductions followed by open QA and discussion. The currently scheduled participants are: * Henrique Andrade, Brazil Data and Experiments Consultant (Grantmaking Catalyst programs) * Aaron Halfaker, Research Analyst (Analytics) * Jonathan Morgan, Learning Strategist (Grantmaking Learning and Evaluation) * Aaron Shaw, Assistant Professor, School of Communication, Northwestern University * Dario Taraborelli, Senior Research Analyst, Strategy (Analytics) The meeting will be on IRC in #wikimedia-office on Monday, September 23 at 1800 UTC / 1100 PST. Please spread the word and join if you are interested. Pine ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
[Wiki-research-l] Office hour with WMF researchers
Hi everyone, WMF researchers have agreed to participate in an office hour. This will be in the same format as the meeting we had in April 2013 with researcher introductions followed by open QA and discussion. The currently scheduled participants are: * Henrique Andrade, Brazil Data and Experiments Consultant (Grantmaking Catalyst programs) * Aaron Halfaker, Research Analyst (Analytics) * Jonathan Morgan, Learning Strategist (Grantmaking Learning and Evaluation) * Aaron Shaw, Assistant Professor, School of Communication, Northwestern University * Dario Taraborelli, Senior Research Analyst, Strategy (Analytics) The meeting will be on IRC in #wikimedia-office on Monday, September 23 at 1800 UTC / 1100 PST. Please spread the word and join if you are interested. Pine ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
[Wiki-research-l] Listen to Wikipedia
Quoting from https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/07/30/listen-to-wikipedia/: Listen to Wikipedia is a visual and audio illustration of live editing activity on Wikipedia. Tune your headphones or speakers accordingly and enjoy the sound of people writing the free online encyclopedia. Listen to Wikipedia creates sounds and circles based on a real-time feed of contributions to Wikipedia articles. The pitch of the note corresponds to the size of the edit — a bigger change makes a deeper note and a larger circle. A bell indicates when content is added to the encyclopedia and a string sound indicates when content is removed. Edits by unregistered contributors are marked with green circles and edits by automated bots are marked with purple circles. Occasionally, you may hear a chord welcoming the newest user who registers and joins the project. Go ahead, make some noise by editing Wikipedia! This project is a follow up to the Recent Changes Map visualization, which displays edits by unregistered users around the world. Both the Recent Changes Map and Listen to Wikipedia are based on Wikipedia’s live public data feed. Source code and additional information about this project are available on github. Listen to Wikipedia was inspired by and partially based on Listen to Bitcoin by Maximillian Laumeister. Stephen LaPorte and Mahmoud Hashemi I recommend checking it out if you have a free minute. 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] Request for statistics: effectiveness of WikiLove
Also remember that barnstars and PUAs existed before Wikilove and continue to be awarded without using Wikilove. Pine ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
[Wiki-research-l] Presentation on editor population trends and influences
For those who have not seen it, I recommend watching the 11 July 2013 WMF metrics meeting. Erik and other WMF employees gave a very interesting presentation. Video and some slides are linked on https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/2013-07-11. 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] Recruiting gamers to edit Wikimedia
Hi Quim and Sarah, I should have worded my question more precisely. I'm asking what Wikimedia could do to recruit people who play video games on various platforms and in various types of games (casual, FPS, MMPORG, and so on) so that they convert the time they currently use for gaming into time spent contributing to Wikimedia projects of any kind or subject rather than on the important but narrower subject of video games. For example, what would it take to convert people who currently play crossword puzzles or Scrabble on their smartphones into editors of Wiktionary? What would it take to convert people who play geocaching into photo contributors to Commons? What would it take to convert FPS gamers into NPP or anti-vandalism editors? The people on the Research list are generating a lot of good discussion about gamification within Wikimedia to encourage more and higher quality participation, and we're also discussing how to recruit gamers to become new Wikimedia contributors. Please come over to the thread on Research-l and let's continue talking there. (: Pine Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2013 07:31:17 -0700 From: Quim Gil q...@wikimedia.org To: e...@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [EE] Recruiting gamers to edit Wikimedia Message-ID: 51d6d8b5.4040...@wikimedia.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed On 07/04/2013 12:46 PM, ENWP Pine wrote: I've asked these questions in other ways and places and I'd like to hear what other people on the Research and EE lists think. There are many video game players of diverse ages, genders, languages, and locations. How could Wikimedia editing be made into an appealing activity for people who are currently video gamers? How could Wikimedia market itself to gamers, including console, LAN, FPS, MMORPG, and mobile gamers? Have you asked at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games ? (as an outsider) I would say that gaming in general is pretty well covered, at least in comparison with other areas of knowledge. Or what would be the reason to target gamers? Editing per se is not the problem. There is no lack of gamers using wikis (and MediaWiki!) e.g. http://www.wikia.com/ or http://www.minecraftwiki.net/ . The average gamer probably gets the idea of crowdsourcing knowledge pretty well. Those wikis are community wikis though, as an editor you won't need to deal (much) with relevance, references, POV, essay, etc. I don't know what are the conditions to upload copyrighted content but probably these wikis are more permissive than Wikimedia's. Well, I guess http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Move_to_gaming_wiki exists for a reason. Maybe if we would send gamers (also) to http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Subject:Games we could keep a bit more talent around... -- Quim Gil Technical Contributor Coordinator @ Wikimedia Foundation http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 08:26:14 -0700 From: Sarah Stierch sstie...@wikimedia.org To: WMF Editor Engagement Team e...@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [EE] Recruiting gamers to edit Wikimedia Message-ID: cafk0ehvocyv-n5kmchop-c0r7wy649adxmdhg5u+cvbjgha...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Hi, And yes, if you're interested in engaging (or re engaging) with people already in the community or who don't edit as frequently perhaps, you can contact people who have userboxes on English Wikipedia saying they are into video games: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Games/Video_games I do this for women's history projects and programs. I either use EdwardsBot and spam them with a template inviting them to something or whatever, or invite them individually (more time consuming of course). Sarah On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Quim Gil q...@wikimedia.org wrote: On 07/04/2013 12:46 PM, ENWP Pine wrote: I've asked these questions in other ways and places and I'd like to hear what other people on the Research and EE lists think. There are many video game players of diverse ages, genders, languages, and locations. How could Wikimedia editing be made into an appealing activity for people who are currently video gamers? How could Wikimedia market itself to gamers, including console, LAN, FPS, MMORPG, and mobile gamers? Have you asked at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/** Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_**gameshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games? (as an outsider) I would say that gaming in general is pretty well covered, at least in comparison with other areas of knowledge. Or what would be the reason to target gamers? Editing per se is not the problem. There is no lack of gamers using wikis (and MediaWiki!) e.g. http://www.wikia.com/ or http://www.minecraftwiki.net/ . The average gamer probably gets the idea of crowdsourcing knowledge pretty well. Those wikis are community
[Wiki-research-l] Recruiting gamers to edit Wikimedia
I've asked these questions in other ways and places and I'd like to hear what other people on the Research and EE lists think. There are many video game players of diverse ages, genders, languages, and locations. How could Wikimedia editing be made into an appealing activity for people who are currently video gamers? How could Wikimedia market itself to gamers, including console, LAN, FPS, MMORPG, and mobile gamers? 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] Why are users blocked on Wikipedia?
We have stewards who impose global IP locks and global account locks frequently for the purpose of blocking spam. Would it make sense to develop a tool that globally removes every edit of an editor who has been blocked by a steward or global admin for spamming, or is that too much power to give to stewards and global admins? My guess is that this would remove a lot of spam from smaller wikis that lack the volunteer resources to do a lot of local spam cleanup, but there are tradeoffs. Pine Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 21:03:07 -0300 From: t...@wikimedia.org To: wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org; wikimediab...@lists.wikimedia.org CC: jxav...@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Why are users blocked on Wikipedia? I really would like to see such analysis for other Wikipedias where we have a much more limited number of volunteers working to combat spam. I remember of a WikiMeeting in São Paulo (one of the biggest so far, I think in 2012 when global development folks visited here) where some very commited wikipedians where trying to explain non addicted wikipedians on the importance of removing those spam links added consciously by paid people. Spam is a real issue and I am afraid it can somehow damage some communities health leaving them overloaded, hence less tolerant to new editors. Maybe when this happen to the English Wikipedia then it will become a real issue. Tom On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Sumana Harihareswara suma...@wikimedia.org wrote: http://blog.ironholds.org/?p=31 Ironholds looked at a sample of users with one or more edits to enwiki who were blocked in 2006-2012. The short version: spam is a bigger problem than vandalism or sockpuppetry, and the spam problem is growing. -- Everton Zanella Alvarenga (also Tom) A life spent making mistakes is not only more honorable, but more useful than a life spent doing nothing. ___ 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] Why are users blocked on Wikipedia?
Hmm, upon further inspection, it looks like we already have a tool called global rollback. Is this something that we should encourage more use of? I would be interested in hearing comments from stewards, global sysops, and people who already have the global RB tool. Pine From: deyntest...@hotmail.com To: wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 17:12:56 -0700 Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Why are users blocked on Wikipedia? We have stewards who impose global IP locks and global account locks frequently for the purpose of blocking spam. Would it make sense to develop a tool that globally removes every edit of an editor who has been blocked by a steward or global admin for spamming, or is that too much power to give to stewards and global admins? My guess is that this would remove a lot of spam from smaller wikis that lack the volunteer resources to do a lot of local spam cleanup, but there are tradeoffs. Pine Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 21:03:07 -0300 From: t...@wikimedia.org To: wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org; wikimediab...@lists.wikimedia.org CC: jxav...@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Why are users blocked on Wikipedia? I really would like to see such analysis for other Wikipedias where we have a much more limited number of volunteers working to combat spam. I remember of a WikiMeeting in São Paulo (one of the biggest so far, I think in 2012 when global development folks visited here) where some very commited wikipedians where trying to explain non addicted wikipedians on the importance of removing those spam links added consciously by paid people. Spam is a real issue and I am afraid it can somehow damage some communities health leaving them overloaded, hence less tolerant to new editors. Maybe when this happen to the English Wikipedia then it will become a real issue. Tom On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Sumana Harihareswara suma...@wikimedia.org wrote: http://blog.ironholds.org/?p=31 Ironholds looked at a sample of users with one or more edits to enwiki who were blocked in 2006-2012. The short version: spam is a bigger problem than vandalism or sockpuppetry, and the spam problem is growing. -- Everton Zanella Alvarenga (also Tom) A life spent making mistakes is not only more honorable, but more useful than a life spent doing nothing. ___ 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] Office hour with WMF researchers
Reminder, meeting starts in about 10 minutes. Pine ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
[Wiki-research-l] Big data benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices)
I'm sending this to Wikimedia-l, Wikitech-l, and Research-l in case other people in the Wikimedia movement or staff are interested in big data as it relates to Wikimedia. I hope that those who are interested in discussions about WMF editor engagement efforts, WMF fundraising, or WMF HR practices will also find that this email interests them. Feel free to skip straight to the links in the latter portion of this email if you're already familiar with big data and its analysis and if you just want to see what other people are writing about the subject. * Introductory comments / my personal opinion Big data refers to large quantities of information that are so large that they are difficult to analyze and may not be related internally in an obvious way. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_data I think that most of us would agree that moving much of an organization's information into the Cloud, and/or directing people to analyze massive quantities of information, will not automatically result in better, or even good, decisions based on that information. Also, I think that most of us would agree that bigger and/or more accessible quantities of data does not necessarily imply that the data are more accurate or more relevant for a particular purpose. Another concern is the possibility of unwelcome intrusions into sensitive information, including the possibility of data breaches; imagine the possible consequences if a hacker broke into supposedly secure databases held by Facebook or the Securities and Exchange Commission. We have an enormous quantity of data on Wikimedia projects, and many ways that we can examine those data. As this Dilbert strip points out, context is important, and looking at statistics devoid of their larger contexts can be problematic. http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1993-02-07/ Since data analysis is also something that Wikipedia does in the areas I mentioned previously, I'm passing along a few links for those who may be interested about the benefits and limitations of big data. * Links: From the Harvard Business Review http://hbr.org/2012/04/good-data-wont-guarantee-good-decisions/ar/1 From the New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/30/technology/big-data-is-great-but-dont-forget-intuition.html and https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/sunday-review/big-datas-impact-in-the-world.html From the Wall Street Journal. This may be especially interesting to those who are participating in the discussions on Wikimedia-l regarding how Wikimedia selects, pays, and manages its staff. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1872396390443890304578006252019616768.html And from English Wikipedia (: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_data and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_mining and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_intelligence Cheers, Pine ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
[Wiki-research-l] Recent Research report: collaboration between editors of different political affiliations, predicting box office revenue, the Essjay controversy, and more
There are a number of interesting topics in this month's Recent Research report. The detailed list of contents for the Research Report may intrigue some readers of Wikimedia-l and Research-l. The report is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-11-26/Recent_research. More information about the report is available at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter. Personally, I was most appreciative of the information under Being Wikipedian is more important than the political affiliation. Quoting from the report: Based on an analysis of a sample of 1390 editors with known political affiliation – either US Democrat or Republican – (the authors) conclude that although the social identity of editors is strongly reflected in their editorial interests – that is, the topics on which they are more active – but that being Wikipedian dominates the political affiliation when it comes to user pages. In contrast with other social media e.g., blogosphere, where cross-party interactions are very much underrepresented, it appears that Wikipedian dialogues between editors from opposing parties are relatively profound and notable. On the day before the US presidential election, the paper's results were highlighted on the Wikimedia blog under the headline In divisive times, Wikipedia brings political opponents together. Recent Research report topics for November 2012: Early prediction of movie box-office revenues with Wikipedia data Readability of the English Wikipedia, Simple Wikipedia, and Britannica compared Wikipedia favors established views and scientifically backed knowledge Trust, authority and credentials on Wikipedia: The case of the Essjay controversy Being Wikipedian is more important than the political affiliation Eye-tracking study: Readers look at TOC first, then infobox Edit categories in featured and non-featured articles How the TV schedule influences Wikipedia pageviews A truthfulness verification system based on Wikipedia Characterizing Wikipedia traffic One-year article ratings dump released Measuring countries' visibility on Wikipedia Ratio of African Wikipedia readers rising, but still low --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] The Wikimedia Research Newsletter 2(11) is out
Looks like we posted almost simultaneously! Thank you very much for your work on this report. --Pine From: dtarabore...@wikimedia.org Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 11:31:42 -0800 To: wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wiki-research-l] The Wikimedia Research Newsletter 2(11) is out The November 2012 issue of the Wikimedia Research Newsletter is out: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2012/November In this issue: 1 Early prediction of movie box-office revenues with Wikipedia data 2 Readability of the English Wikipedia, Simple Wikipedia, and Britannica compared 3 Wikipedia favors established views and scientifically backed knowledge 4 Trust, authority and credentials on Wikipedia: The case of the Essjay controversy 5 Briefly 6 References ••• 16 publications were covered in this issue ••• Thanks to Piotr Konieczny, Benjamin Mako Hill, Taha Yasseri, Heather Ford and Diederik van Liere for contributing Dario Taraborelli and Tilman Bayer -- Wikimedia Research Newsletter https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/ * Follow us on Twitter/Identi.ca: @WikiResearch * Receive this newsletter by mail: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/research-newsletter * Subscribe to the RSS feed: http://blog.wikimedia.org/c/research-2/wikimedia-research-newsletter/feed/ ___ 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] AFT5 regarding RJensen question
RJensen wrote in the War of 1812 email thread: Comments: I have not seen any editor make actual use of the Article Feedback tool -- are there examples? Yes Wikipedians are very proud of their vast half-billion-person audience. However they do not ask what features are most useful for a high school student or teacher/ a university student/ etc This is a very interesting question. What have been the benefits of AFT5? I have seen complaints about spam and suppressible material being written in AFT5. What benefits has it had? With your permission, RJensen, I'll forward your question and mine to Wikimedia-l for discussion there as well. Pine ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
[Wiki-research-l] RCom and the Subject Recruitment Approvals Group
Hi Dario, I have a couple of questions. Are the RCom pages still being updated? I’m seeing some outdated stuff there, and http://etherpad.wikimedia.org/RComMonthlyReports2012 seems to indicate less activity since March. Did RCom ever reach conclusions about standards for recruiting Wikimedians to be research subjects, and the Subject Recruitment Approvals Group? We had a discussion about those issues on this list in March, and I got the impression that RCom was planning to take action on that at the next RCom meeting. There was also some activity at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Committee/Areas_of_interest/Subject_recruitment. I’d appreciate RCom bringing some finality and clarification to these procedures as written on Meta before the next US academic year starts, and/or starting some sort of formal working group. I’m cc’ing this email to Research-l because I feel that other members of the list might also appreciate an update on subject recruitment approval and on RCom’s work. Thanks very much. 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] RCom and the Subject Recruitment Approvals Group
Hi Dario and Dariusz, Thanks for the updates. I would support moving forward with https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Committee/Reorganization. Dario, I am getting the impression that some dedicated WMF staff support for RCom would be beneficial, given RCom's global nature, its workload, and the value of its work. Staff support would help with sustainability and day-to-day coordination of the many activities of RCom including subject recruitment requests. I hope that institutions and researchers who work with Wikimedia data and subjects in their research would step forward to provide financial support for the hiring of at least a part-time WMF staffer. Regarding the procedure for subject recruitment approvals, I get the impression that at least two small groups of editors have worked on separate proposals. I would suggest creating a working group to integrate these and/or to decide to forward both of the proposals to the community as alternatives. Thanks very much. Pine -Original Message- From: Dariusz Jemielniak Sent: Thursday, 19 July, 2012 12:18 To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities Cc: ENWP Pine ; The Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee mailing list Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] RCom and the Subject Recruitment Approvals Group hi Pine, BlueRaspberry and I (pundit) had a discussion about this recently and it seems we're ready to make a proposal for the community consideration, if there is interest. best, dariusz On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Dario Taraborelli dtarabore...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hi Pine, that's correct, we discontinued the bi-monthly meetings for a number of reasons even though many activities that fall within the scope RCom continued silently over the last months (project/subject recruitment request reviews; monthly publication of the research newsletter; open access and open data policies; expert engagement initiatives). At this stage RCom is an entirely volunteer-driven effort with little to no support from WMF (I am myself helping during my spare time). For RCom to fulfill its mission we need to find a better collaboration model, make it more self-sustainable and open up participation to community members in its various areas of activities. To this aim I posted a reorg proposal [1] that was introduced and discussed last week at a workshop organized by Mayo Fuster at Wikimania. Part of this reorganization includes a new policy proposal drafted by Aaron Halfaker to replace the current review process with a new one with a strong community engagement component [2]. We'd love to hear your thoughts on how to move forward, I expect we will be sharing updates on research-l once we've reviewed these various proposals. Best, Dario [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Committee/Reorganization [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Recruitment_policy On Jul 19, 2012, at 1:55 AM, ENWP Pine wrote: Hi Dario, I have a couple of questions. Are the RCom pages still being updated? I'm seeing some outdated stuff there, and http://etherpad.wikimedia.org/RComMonthlyReports2012 seems to indicate less activity since March. Did RCom ever reach conclusions about standards for recruiting Wikimedians to be research subjects, and the Subject Recruitment Approvals Group? We had a discussion about those issues on this list in March, and I got the impression that RCom was planning to take action on that at the next RCom meeting. There was also some activity at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Committee/Areas_of_interest/Subject_recruitment. I'd appreciate RCom bringing some finality and clarification to these procedures as written on Meta before the next US academic year starts, and/or starting some sort of formal working group. I'm cc'ing this email to Research-l because I feel that other members of the list might also appreciate an update on subject recruitment approval and on RCom's work. Thanks very much. Pine ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l -- __ dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] RCom and the Subject Recruitment Approvals Group
Hi Yaroslav, What we are discussing are alternatives to the current procedure, rather than specific requests for approval of recruiting. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Recruitment_policy, https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Subject_Recruitment_Approvals_Group, https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Committee/Areas_of_interest/Subject_recruitment, and the comments on project review and subject review at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Committee/Reorganization. Pine -Original Message- From: Yaroslav M. Blanter Sent: Thursday, 19 July, 2012 13:31 To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] RCom and the Subject Recruitment ApprovalsGroup Hi Pine, I do not think it is correct. The proposals requiring SR discussions are being announced on Rcom mailing list, and then it is just a matter of who is available. For instance, for the last proposal I was traveling, and then I saw that it has already been reviewed, and there is nothing justifying my post-deadline reaction, so I just did not react. For some other proposals, I was actively participating in the evaluation. Cheers Yaroslav Regarding the procedure for subject recruitment approvals, I get the impression that at least two small groups of editors have worked on separate proposals. I would suggest creating a working group to integrate these and/or to decide to forward both of the proposals to the community as alternatives. Thanks very much. ___ 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
