Re: [Wiki-research-l] Thinking big: scaling up Wikimedia's contributor population by two orders of magnitude
I get where you're coming from, but a great way to inspire the projects to improve their onboarding processes would be an endless influx of newbie editors. *Edward Saperia* Founder Newspeak House <http://www.nwspk.com> email <edsape...@gmail.com> • facebook <http://www.facebook.com/edsaperia> • twitter <http://www.twitter.com/edsaperia> • 07796955572 133-135 Bethnal Green Road, E2 7DG On 28 August 2016 at 11:03, Stuart A. Yeates <syea...@gmail.com> wrote: > I completely disagree with this criticism of the WMF. > > It seems to me that the main barriers to getting gamification happening in > relation to en.wiki are cultural / organisational issues not marketing ones. > > If the editing communities genuinely wanted huge influxes of complete > newbie editors, I have no doubt that the commercial partners who benefit > from wikipedia could send them our way pretty trivially. What the editing > communities want / need is new minimally-competent editors, and crafting > them from complete newbies (typically called on-boarding) is very costly. > > See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onboarding for an overview of the > complexities. > > cheers > stuart > > -- > ...let us be heard from red core to black sky > > On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Gerard Meijssen < > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hoi, >> You are absolutely right. Both approaches have promise. It is however a >> marketing job, not a research job to realise their potential. Marketing is >> where the WMF sucks. >> Thanks, >> GerardM >> >> On 27 August 2016 at 22:49, Dario Taraborelli <dtarabore...@wikimedia.org >> > wrote: >> >>> Nice, thought-provoking post, Pine. >>> >>> Here's my take on two ways to attract a population of good-faith >>> contributors 1 or 2 orders of magnitude larger than the current one, based >>> on what I've seen over the last couple of years: >>> >>> *Gamified interfaces for microcontributions à la Wikidata game*. >>> (per GerardM) there's absolutely no doubt this model is effective at >>> creating a large volume of high-quality edits, and value to the project and >>> communities. So far these tools have been primarily targeted at an existing >>> (and relatively small) population of core contributors and the only attempt >>> at expanding this to a much broader contributor base (WikiGrok) were too >>> premature. I do expect we will see more and more of lightweight distributed >>> curation in the next 5-10 years. In my opinion Wikidata is ready to >>> experiment with a much larger number of single-purpose contributory >>> interfaces (around missing images, translations, label evaluation, >>> referencing etc) >>> >>> *Ubiquitous outreach, supported by dedicated technology*. >>> I called out in my Wikimania 2014 talk >>> <http://www.slideshare.net/dartar/wikimania-2014-the-missing-wikipedia-ads> >>> the fact that the single, most effective initiative ever run to attract new >>> contributors has been WLM (I am intentionally not including initiatives >>> like WP in the classroom as they target a pre-defined population such as >>> students, but they are probably the most advanced example in this >>> category). Creating tools such as recommender systems and todo lists >>> *tailored >>> to the interests of particular, intrinsically motivated contributors* >>> as well as the analytics dashboards <http://tools.wmflabs.org/hashtags/> >>> to measure the relative impact and best design of these programs, is the >>> most promising venue to expand the Wikimedia contributor population. >>> >>> My 2 cents. How making the edit button 10x larger is not a solution to >>> this problem is a topic I'll reserve to a separate thread. >>> >>> Thanks for starting this thread. >>> >>> Dario >>> >>> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 5:32 AM, rupert THURNER < >>> rupert.thur...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Amir E. Aharoni < >>>> amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The English Wikipedia alone has hundreds of thousands of items to fix >>>>> - missing references, misspellings, etc. The problems are nicely sorted at >>>>> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_backlog . There >>>>> are millions of other things to fix in other projects. So quality is >>>>> getting higher in many ways, but the amount of stuff to fix is still >>
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Thinking big: scaling up Wikimedia's contributor population by two orders of magnitude
I had a famous game designer talk about this at Wikimania 2014: http://www.raphkoster.com/games/presentations/wikipedia-is-a-game/ *Edward Saperia* Founder Newspeak House <http://www.nwspk.com> email <edsape...@gmail.com> • facebook <http://www.facebook.com/edsaperia> • twitter <http://www.twitter.com/edsaperia> • 07796955572 133-135 Bethnal Green Road, E2 7DG On 27 August 2016 at 08:13, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thinking big here: popular internationalized computer games can have 10+ > million unit sales. Some of the most popular online games have millions of > monthly active users. I'm wondering if the research community, including > Design Research, can envision a way for Wikimedia to scale up from 80,000 > active monthly users to 8,000,000 active monthly users. > > What would we need in order to stimulate and nourish this kind of growth? > > What can we learn from popular internationalized games about design that > could benefit Wikimedia on a large scale? > > 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] Reinforcing or incentivizing desired user behavior
shazam: http://www.raphkoster.com/games/presentations/wikipedia-is-a-game/ *Edward Saperia* Founder Newspeak House <http://www.nwspk.com> email <edsape...@gmail.com> • facebook <http://www.facebook.com/edsaperia> • twitter <http://www.twitter.com/edsaperia> • 07796955572 133-135 Bethnal Green Road, E2 7DG On 6 October 2015 at 19:42, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hoi, > There was a presentation about game theory at WIkimania in London... Quite > interesting. > Thanks, > GerardM > > On 6 October 2015 at 17:29, Jonathan Morgan <jmor...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > >> Hi Pine, >> >> The book *Building Successful Online Communities: Evidence Based Social >> Design*[1] provides a great synthesis of concepts from economics, >> sociology, and cognitive psychology as they apply to the design of projects >> like Wikipedia. In fact, Wikipedia is one of the primary case studies used >> in the book. They have several chapters that focus on motivation >> techniques/tools. The book is easy to skim and apply! >> >> Hope that helps, >> Jonathan >> >> 1. https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/building-successful-online-communities >> >> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Some of us plan to have a conversation at the WCONUSA unconference >>> sessions about ENWP culture. Are there any recommended readings that you >>> could suggest as preparation, particularly on the subject of how to >>> reinforce or incentivize desirable user behavior? I think that Jonathan may >>> have done some research on this topic for the Teahouse, and Ocassi may have >>> for done research for TWA. I'm interested in applicable research as >>> preparation both for the unconference discussion and for my planned video >>> series that intends to inform and inspire new editors. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Pine >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Jonathan T. Morgan >> Senior Design Researcher >> Wikimedia Foundation >> User:Jmorgan (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)> >> >> >> ___ >> Wiki-research-l mailing list >> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >> >> > > ___ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > > ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
[Wiki-research-l] Software Sustainability Institute petition on Research Software
Hey, saw this going around, might be of interest to some people on this list: The Software Sustainability Institute have set up a petition to recognise the importance of software and software engineers to the research community: http://bit.ly/SoftwareIsFundamental *Edward Saperia* Conference Director Wikimania London http://www.wikimanialondon.org email e...@wikimanialondon.org • facebook http://www.facebook.com/edsaperia • twitter http://www.twitter.com/edsaperia • 07796955572 133-135 Bethnal Green Road, E2 7DG ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Future platforms, devices, and consumers
I think this is a great discussion - is there somewhere on-wiki that we're discussing this kind of thing? I just ordered an Oculus Rift MKII dev kit, 1080p per eye!! [?] Of course, we shouldn't really think in terms of devices, but rather open standards that people can build support for other formats on top of. *Edward Saperia* Conference Director Wikimania London http://www.wikimanialondon.org email e...@wikimanialondon.org • facebook http://www.facebook.com/edsaperia • twitter http://www.twitter.com/edsaperia • 07796955572 133-135 Bethnal Green Road, E2 7DG On 15 August 2014 22:21, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote: Following up on Lila's Wikimania keynote: what platforms and devices should we have in mind when making decisions today or in the near future about Wikimedia content creation and delivery? *Digital eyewear? *Smart watches? *3D displays? *Large format displays? *Health monitoring devices? *Smart homes and buildings? *Computer-led education systems in classrooms and remote learning? *Driverless or semi-driverless cars? *GPS-enabled devices of all sizes? *Artificially intelligent consumers of Wikimedia content? I would be interested in hearing others' thoughts. 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] this month's research newsletter
I really like the idea of some kind of annual award. If someone puts it together before Wikimania, I can put it into the closing ceremony? *Edward Saperia* Conference Director Wikimania London http://www.wikimanialondon.org/ email e...@wikimanialondon.org • facebook http://www.facebook.com/edsaperia • twitter http://www.twitter.com/edsaperia • 07796955572 133-135 Bethnal Green Road, E2 7DG On 2 July 2014 10:15, Aaron Halfaker aaron.halfa...@gmail.com wrote: Given that it seems we agree with Poitr's desire for research about Wikipedia to lead to useful tools an insights that can be directly applied to making Wikipedia and other wikis better, what might be a more effective strategy for encouraging researchers to engage with us or at least release their work in forms that we can more easily work with? Here's a couple of half-baked ideas: - *Wiki research impact task force* -- contacts authors to encourage them to release code/datasets/etc. and praise them publicly when they do -- could be part of the work of newsletter reviewers. There are many researchers on this list who work directly with Wikimedians to make sure that their research has direct impact and their awesomeness is worth our appreciation and public recognition. - *Yearly research award* -- for the most directly impactful research projects/researchers similar to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_France_Research_Award. One of the focuses of the judging could be the direct impact that the work has had. -Aaron On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Heather Ford hfor...@gmail.com wrote: Apologies. You're right, Han-Teng. The reviewer looks to be Piotr Konieczny who I think is on this mailing list? Heather Ford Oxford Internet Institute http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk Doctoral Programme EthnographyMatters http://ethnographymatters.net | Oxford Digital Ethnography Group http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=115 http://hblog.org | @hfordsa http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa On 2 July 2014 12:58, h hant...@gmail.com wrote: Heather, I am not sure who contribute that. Probably not Nemo. If this issue of newsletter is correctly attributed, the contributors include: Taha Yasseri, Maximilian Klein, Piotr Konieczny, Kim Osman, and Tilman Bayer. My suggestion is only a personal one, and I am not sure if it is against policies to make a few edits once the newsletter is out. Thanks again to the contributors of the newsletter, my life is a bit easier and more interesting because of your work. 2014-07-02 15:35 GMT+07:00 Heather Ford hfor...@gmail.com: +1 Thanks for your really thoughtful comments, Joe, Han-Teng. Nemo, would you be willing to add a note to the review and/or contacting the researcher? Best, Heather. Heather Ford Oxford Internet Institute http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk Doctoral Programme EthnographyMatters http://ethnographymatters.net | Oxford Digital Ethnography Group http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=115 http://hblog.org | @hfordsa http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa On 2 July 2014 05:17, h hant...@gmail.com wrote: The tone of the sentence in question 'it is disappointing that the main purpose appears to be completing a thesis, with little thought to actually improving Wikipedia' could have been written as 'It would be more useful for the Wikipedia community of practice if the author discussed or even spelled out the implications of the research for improving Wikipedia. This suggestion is based on my own impression that [Wiki-research-l] has mainly two groups of readers: community of practice and community of knowledge. It is okay to have some group tensions for creative/critical inputs. Still, a neutral tone is better for assessment, and an encouraging tone might work a bit better to encourage others to fill the *gaps* (both practice and knowledge ones). Also, the factors such as originally intended audience and word limits may determine how much a writer can do for *due weight* (similar to [[WP:due]]). If the original (academic) author failed to address the implications for practices satisfactory, a research newsletter contributor can point out what s/he thinks the potential/actual implications are. (My thanks to the research newsletter's voluntary contributors for their unpaid work!) While I understand that the monthly research newsletter has its own perspective and interests different from academic newsletters, it does not sacrifice the integrity of the newsletter to be gentle and specific. I would recommend a minor edit to the sentence as the the newsletter could be read by any one in the world, not just the Wikipedians. It is public/published for all readers, and thus please do not assume the readers know the context of Wikipedia research. Best, han-teng liao 2014-07-01 19:37 GMT+07:00 Heather Ford hfor...@gmail.com: Thanks so much
