[Wiki-research-l] Re: What's your favorite text about general research frameworks?

[Jonathan Morgan]

+1 for Stu Geiger's approach. I also like to take an ethnographic approach
to understanding Wikipedia as a project/workspace/community. I used to
conduct a *lot* of interviews with Wikipedia community members, and the
best reference I've found for how to do ethnographic interviewing well is
James Spradley's appropriately-named classic methods manual
. If you're curious whether this
is the right approach for you, you can find sample chapters of that work in
various places on the web, like here (PDF
).

Jonathan

On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 9:20 AM Isaac Johnson  wrote:

> I'd like to also call out the trace ethnography approach that R. Stuart
> Geiger and others have used to great effect in studying Wikipedia -- e.g.,
> see https://stuartgeiger.com/trace-ethnography-hicss-geiger-ribes.pdf
>
> On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 3:47 AM Pablo Aragón  wrote:
>
> > Hi Andrew,
> >
> > Thanks for sharing this question and the two references. In the field of
> > Computational Social Science, [1-3] are key references to me, I hope they
> > inspire you too.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > [1] Salganik, M. J. (2019). Bit by bit: Social research in the digital
> age.
> > Princeton University Press. https://www.bitbybitbook.com
> >
> > [2] González-Bailón, S. (2017). Decoding the social world: Data science
> and
> > the unintended consequences of communication. MIT Press.
> > https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/decoding-social-world
> >
> > [3] Lazer, D. M., Pentland, A., Watts, D. J., Aral, S., Athey, S.,
> > Contractor, N., ... & Wagner, C. (2020). Computational social science:
> > Obstacles and opportunities. Science, 369(6507), 1060-1062.
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 5:28 PM Andrew Green 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I hope this is the right place to ask this question!
> > >
> > > I was wondering if folks who are doing (or are interested in) research
> > > about Wikipedia might like to share texts that they feel best describe
> > > the general research frameworks they use (or might like to use).
> > >
> > > I'd love to hear about any texts you like, regardless of format
> > > (textbook, paper, general reference, blog post, etc.).
> > >
> > > It seems a lot of work about Wikipedia uses approaches from
> > > Computational Social Science. The main references I have for that are
> > > [1] and [2].
> > >
> > > I'm especially interested in links between Computational Social Science
> > > and frameworks from more traditional social sciences and cognitive
> > science.
> > >
> > > Many thanks in advance! :) Cheers,
> > > Andrew
> > >
> > > [1] Cioffi-Revilla, C. (2017) /Introduction to Computational Social
> > > Science. Principles and Applications. Second Edition./ Cham,
> > > Switzerland: Springer.
> > >
> > > [2] Melnik, R. (ed.) (2015)/Mathematical and Computational Modeling.
> > > With Applications in Natural and Social Sciences, Engineering, and the
> > > Arts/. Hoboken, U.S.A.: Wiley.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Andrew Green (he/him)
> > > ___
> > > Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > To unsubscribe send an email to
> > wiki-research-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >
> > ___
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe send an email to
> wiki-research-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
> >
>
>
> --
> Isaac Johnson (he/him/his) -- Research Scientist -- Wikimedia Foundation
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to wiki-research-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to wiki-research-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wiki-research-l] Re: Article on WP for fact-checking in schools

[Jonathan Morgan]

great article! Thanks for sharing, J

> On Nov 7, 2021, at 3:49 PM, Mathieu O'Neil  wrote:
> 
> Hi all
> 
> The first stage in the campaign to introduce WP as part of the fact-checking 
> curriculum in primary and secondary schools i n Australia was launched last 
> week with the publication of the following article.
> 
> The title (chosen by eds not us) is a bit 'off' as we are talking about 
> lateral reading and quick fact-checking not research (though arguably these 
> notions are intertwined) but it has been useful in terms of generating debate 
> and attention, which I guess was the goal.
> 
> cheers,
> Mathieu
> 
> https://theconversation.com/students-are-told-not-to-use-wikipedia-for-research-but-its-a-trustworthy-source-168834
> [https://images.theconversation.com/files/429888/original/file-20211103-25-n3j4f1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0=0%2C188%2C5991%2C2991=45=format=1356=668=crop]
> Students are told not to use Wikipedia for research. But it's a trustworthy 
> source
> At a time when it’s increasingly difficult to separate truth from falsehood, 
> Wikipedia is an accessible tool for fact-checking and fighting misinformation.
> theconversation.com
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to wiki-research-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to wiki-research-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wiki-research-l] Re: Negative views of Wikipedia in schools [was: Re: Wiki-research-l Digest, Vol 193, Issue 5

[Jonathan Morgan]

Hi Mattieu,

I did some literature reviews on similar topics a few years back. Hope this
helps!

1.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Student_use_of_free_online_information_resources/Related_work
2.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:The_role_of_citations_in_how_readers_evaluate_Wikipedia_articles/Bibliography

Jonathan

On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 1:24 AM Mathieu O'Neil 
wrote:

> Hi everyone
>
> Apologies if this has been covered previously on the list. I was inspired
> to write by the reference in the post below to the Wiki Ed Program.
>
> I am about to launch with an education scholar colleague a funded research
> project aiming to develop fact-checking techniques with Y5, Y6 and Y7
> schoolchildren in three Canberra schools (Australian Capital Territory). We
> are basing our approach to fact-checking on concepts developed by education
> scholars in the US such as "civic online reasoning" and "lateral reading":
> look away from the (potentially dubious) content; check the source. The
> easiest and most effective way to "check the source" is to look at a
> Wikipedia entry and check the reference list.
>
> In parallel, I am convening a first-year communication course on media
> literacy at the University of Canberra with 140+ students. A couple of
> weeks ago we did a group activity on Wikipedia, where students were asked
> to review and discuss a Wiki Ed Program / Wikimedia brochure ("Instructor
> Basics: How to use Wikipedia as a teaching tool") which clearly outlines
> editorial and behavioral policies such as NPOV, Reliable Sources, Assume
> Good Faith, etc.
>
> We then asked whether any prior assumptions had been challenged. It became
> clear that when they were in high-school, these students had been
> forcefully and repeatedly instructed by their teachers to NEVER use
> Wikipedia ("unreliable"). After completing the activity, students
> overwhelmingly expressed amazement about the existence of quality controls
> on Wikipedia and said their opinion of its reliability had changed.
>
> We also have anecdotal evidence that primary and secondary school teachers
> hold similar negative opinions about WP.
>
> It would be helpful for us to find out if this negative image is specific
> to the Canberra education system, or has been encountered elsewhere. To
> that end, I would very much appreciate it if anyone could point me to any
> studies or projects which explore this issue, or who could share their
> experiences of how teachers perceive Wikipedia.
>
> If you want to get in touch off-list I usually respond quickest to email
> sent at my primary address: mathieu.on...@canberra.edu.au
>
> Many thanks!
> Mathieu
>
>
>
> 
> From: wiki-research-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <
> wiki-research-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 22:01
> To: wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org <
> wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Wiki-research-l Digest, Vol 193, Issue 5
>
> Send Wiki-research-l mailing list submissions to
> wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe, please visit
>
> https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.wikimedia.org%2Fpostorius%2Flists%2Fwiki-research-l.lists.wikimedia.org%2Fdata=04%7C01%7Cmathieu.oneil%40anu.edu.au%7C4451361d2fd74302eef008d9a902%7Ce37d725cab5c46249ae5f0533e486437%7C0%7C0%7C637672179490869770%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000sdata=oalgoACidjlDoO9m6Ku5OMm4RGiKGJT6bDNcmi%2FvDb8%3Dreserved=0
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wiki-research-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wiki-research-l digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: [Wikimedia Research Showcase] September 15, 2021: Socialization
> on Wikipedia
>   (Janna Layton)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 12:44:20 -0700
> From: Janna Layton 
> Subject: [Wiki-research-l] Re: [Wikimedia Research Showcase] September
> 15, 2021: Socialization on Wikipedia
> To: analyt...@lists.wikimedia.org,
> wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org,
> wikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
> Message-ID:
> <
> cajxkj+oak+nal9qb4llmf1ofo1ktnibccqxd8gc5bknyyjm...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Reminder that the September Research Showcase is this Wednesday.
>
> On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 1:15 PM Janna Layton  wrote:
>
> > Hello all,
> >
> > The September Wikimedia Research Showcase will be on September 15 at
> 16:30
> > UTC (9:30am PT/ 12:30pm ET/ 18:30pm CEST). The theme will be
> > "socialization on Wikipedia" with speakers Rosta Farzan and J. Nathan
> > Matias.
> >
> > Livestream:
> 

[Wiki-research-l] Re: [announcement] Welcoming Emily Lescak to Research at the Wikimedia Foundation

[Jonathan Morgan]

Welcome, Emily!

Jonathan

> On Aug 20, 2021, at 10:49 PM, Mardetanha  wrote:
> 
> We are glad to have you, Emily, Welcome
> 
> 
> Mardetanha
> 
> 
>> On Sat, Aug 21, 2021 at 5:31 AM Leila Zia  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> In February 2021, I reached out to you [0] to gather your input for a
>> new position that we were creating in the Research team [1] at the
>> Wikimedia Foundation, a research community focus role. In March 2021,
>> I shared the job opening with you [2]. Today I'm introducing Emily
>> Lescak who joined our team in June 2021 as a Senior Research Community
>> Officer.
>> 
>> Emily earned a PhD in Fisheries from the University of Alaska
>> Fairbanks College of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences [3] and has
>> extensive experience in research, data science, education and
>> community engagement. She was a National Science Foundation-funded
>> postdoctoral fellow at the University of Alaska Anchorage [4], a
>> fisheries geneticist at the Alaska Department of Fish and Game [5],
>> and the program specialist for the Genetics Society of America’s Peer
>> Review Training Program [6]. Most recently, she developed The Event
>> Fund [7] at Code for Science & Society [8], which provides financial
>> and programmatic support to organizers of international open data
>> science events.
>> 
>> In the Research team Emily will focus on initiatives that help expand,
>> diversify and support the community of Wikimedia researchers globally.
>> My ask to Emily has been to focus her efforts between July 2021 and
>> June 22 (Fiscal Year 22) primarily on developing a strategy for our
>> team with regards to our responsibility towards and opportunity in
>> interacting with (the Wikimedia) researchers. Emily will be building
>> on some of our early thoughts as a team in this space developed in
>> 2019 [9] and will work closely with many of you to achieve this goal.
>> To this end, she has started a listening tour to learn more from the
>> perspectives of some of the existing community members. If you'd like
>> to talk with Emily, you should feel welcome to email her directly or
>> express interest in https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T287615 .
>> 
>> Please welcome Emily to the research community! :)
>> 
>> Best,
>> Leila
>> 
>> 
>> [0]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org/thread/FFK7FZTE544HW7D6JVVSPZOPBJC2S6N2/
>> 
>> [1] https://research.wikimedia.org/team.html
>> 
>> [2]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/SMF7BZDF4FX26Y4JMIESN5ALXE7ZXCDL/
>> 
>> [3] https://www.uaf.edu/cfos/
>> 
>> [4]
>> https://www.uaa.alaska.edu/academics/college-of-arts-and-sciences/departments/biological-sciences/
>> 
>> [5]
>> https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=fishinggeneconservationlab.main
>> 
>> [6]
>> https://genetics-gsa.org/career-development/genetics-peer-review-training-program/
>> 
>> [7] https://eventfund.codeforscience.org/
>> 
>> [8] https://codeforscience.org/
>> 
>> [9]
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Foundations_-_Wikimedia_Research_2030.pdf
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Leila Zia
>> Head of Research
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>> ___
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wiki-research-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>> 
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to wiki-research-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to wiki-research-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wiki-research-l] Re: [data] Announcement - Data release

[Jonathan Morgan]

Thanks for sharing this news, Leila and Isaac!

And special thanks to all the research & analytics folks who helped make
this important data release happen.

Jonathan

On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 9:06 AM Leila Zia  wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> Summary: We have released two COVID-19 related data-sets. If you just need
> the information about the datasets, please read the section titled "Data
> release details" below. The rest of this email provides background as well
> as thanks and credits information.
>
> ==Background==
> On March 26, 2020, only a few months into the COVID-19 pandemic, a group of
> Wikimedia volunteer researchers and editors as well as a subset of the
> Wikimedia Foundation staff interested in the community, data and research
> aspect of our work came together to brainstorm COVID-19 related data and
> research. One of the themes that emerged from that conversation was that
> the Wikimedia Foundation considers releasing more granular COVID-19 related
> data.
>
> ==Data release details==
> Today we’re happy to share with you that we have publicly released two
> Wikipedia readership COVID-19 related data-sets. The first dataset is
> COVID-19 article page views by country, the second dataset is one hop
> navigation where one of the two pages are COVID-19 related. You can find
> both data-sets at
>
> https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/COVID-19_Pandemic_Wikipedia_Readership/14548032?file=27917895
>
> ==Thanks and credits==
> This release would not have been possible without contributions from the
> following people: Joseph Allemandou (Data Engineering), Marcel Ruiz Forns
> (Data Engineering), Fabian Kaelin (Research), Isaac Johnson (Research),
> Nuria Ruiz (Data Engineering), Leila Zia (Research). We also want to thank
> those who participated in the original brainstorming meeting and offered us
> their expertise and time [1].
>
> [1] In alphabetical order:
> Dan Andreescu, Data Engineering, Wikimedia Foundation
> Asaf Bartov, Senior Program Officer, Emerging Wikimedia Communities,
> Wikimedia Foundation
> Carlos Castillo, Distinguished Research Professor, UPF (User:ChaTo)
> Ciro Cattuto, Professor, University of Torino & Research co-Director, ISI
> Foundation
> Meeyoung Cha, Associate Professor, KAIST
> Djellel Difallah, NYU Abu Dhabi (then: Research Scientist, Wikimedia
> Foundation)
> Martin Gerlach, Research Scientist, Wikimedia Foundation
> James Heilman (Doc James), English Wikipedia medical editor
> Benjamin Mako Hill, Assistant Professor, University of Washington,
> (User:Benjamin Mako Hill)
> David Lazer, Professor, Northeastern University
> J. Nathan Matias, Assistant Professor, Cornell Communication
> Jason Moore, English Wikipedia, WikiProject COVID-19, (User:Another
> Believer)
> Jonathan Morgan, Senior Design Researcher at CrowdStrike (then: Senior
> Design Researcher, Wikimedia Foundation)
> Margeigh Novotny, Sr. Dir Product Design & Strategy, Wikimedia Foundation
> Sam Patton, Sr. Online Fundraising Manager, Wikimedia Foundation
> Miriam Redi, Senior Research Scientist, Wikimedia Foundation
> Diego Sáez-Trumper, Senior Research Scientist, Wikimedia Foundation
> Jodi Schneider, Assistant Professor, School of Information Sciences, UIUC,
> (User:Jodi.a.schneider)
> Joseph Seddon, Senior Community Relations Specialist, (User:Seddon)
> Markus Strohmaier, Professor, RWTH Aachen University and Sci. Coordinator,
> GESIS
> Bob West, Assistant Professor, EPFL
> Leila Zia, Head of Research, Wikimedia Foundation
>
> Best,
> Leila
>
> --
> Leila Zia
> Head of Research
> Wikimedia Foundation
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to wiki-research-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to wiki-research-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wiki-research-l] Re: New Dataset on Search Engine Traffic to Wikipedia

[Jonathan Morgan]

this is an amazing resource. Thank you! 

Jonathan

> On Jun 10, 2021, at 2:52 PM, Isaac J  wrote:
> 
> Hello everybody,
> 
> I'd like to announce a new dataset of Wikipedia pageviews that shows trends
> in search engine usage across countries, language editions, internet
> browsers, and device operating systems (
> https://techblog.wikimedia.org/2021/06/07/searching-for-wikipedia/). We are
> releasing this dataset within the context of the Foundational program [1]
> and in particular research focused on Wikimedia's relationship with
> external platforms [2]. This dataset fills a large gap in both public
> information about global search engine usage and our understanding of the
> external platforms that mediate how readers reach Wikipedia.
> 
> For context, approximately 50% of Wikipedia pageviews come directly from
> clicking on links on search engines (with another 30% coming from clicking
> on internal links within Wikipedia and the rest from external sites or
> direct navigation) [3]. For those 50% of pageviews coming from search
> engines, this dataset (and corresponding dashboard) allows you to examine
> which search engines were used and how those patterns vary by country,
> Wikipedia language, internet browser, and device operating system.
> 
> If you have any questions about these datasets or related projects please
> feel free to contact me. More details here:
> https://techblog.wikimedia.org/2021/06/07/searching-for-wikipedia/
> 
> Best,
> Isaac
> 
> [1] https://research.wikimedia.org/foundational.html
> [2]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:External_Reuse_of_Wikimedia_Content
> [3] https://discovery.wmflabs.org/external/
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to wiki-research-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to wiki-research-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Interesting Wikipedia studies

[Jonathan Morgan]

A few more for consideration:

Keegan et al.'s work on how editors collaborate around breaking news events
 (I expect
this to get cited a lot in the next year or so, with increased interest in
the role of Wikipedia in combating COVID disinformation)

Forte et al's work on the way emergent, nested institutions within
Wikipedia function
 and their
key role in supporting content quality and distributed decision-making.
Lots of great theory-building, and an excellent example of the depth of
insight that qualitative research can produce.

In terms of newer stuff, I really admire Marc Miquel-Ribe and David
Laniado's methodology for mapping gaps in Wikipedia content across languages
. And I
think their starting point (what is the Wikipedia content that naturally
belongs within the "cultural context" of a group of language speakers?) is
maybe the best approach I've found for tackling the thorny questions around
defining and addressing knowledge gaps.

Also in terms of newer stuff... the Wikimedia Research showcase page
 is a great
place to start one's explorations :)

- Jonathan



On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 7:23 AM Morten Wang  wrote:

> In the human-computer interaction field, I'd highlight three seminal
> papers:
>
> Viégas and Wattenberg's 2004 paper established Wikipedia as an area of
> study, and used novel visualization techniques to demonstrate how quickly
> vandalism is removed from the encyclopedia. Back in 2004, the main research
> question was probably "how does this thing even work?", particularly with
> regards to combating vandalism, and this paper starts the path of answering
> that question.
>
> Priedhorsky et al's 2007 paper dug into authorship of content that is
> viewed, giving us good insights into the "who writes Wikipedia?" question.
> It asks some important questions around what "value" is in a
> peer-production community like Wikipedia (is content that is viewed more
> often more valuable?) There's also some cool methodological aspects of this
> paper (it uses MD5 checksums for revert detection, and there's now SHA1
> checksums for all revision in Wikipedia's API).
>
> Halfaker et al's 2013 paper digs deeply into answering why the Wikipedia
> community started declining in 2007. They find that the quality assurance
> processes that were created to deal with the firehose of content coming in
> with the exponential growth around 2004–2005 also end up discarding
> good-faith contributions. This highlights the problem of how to do quality
> assurance while also being a welcoming community to newcomers who are
> struggling to learn all of Wikipedia's various rules and conventions (see
> also the Teahouse paper).
>
> Another question that I find really interesting and that is perhaps often
> overlooked is "why did Wikipedia succeed?" It's easy to think that there
> were few or no other competitors in the online encyclopedia space at the
> time it got started, but there were a bunch of them. Mako Hill's PhD thesis
> has a chapter that looks at that
> , and he also
> gave
> a talk at the Berkman Klein Center
>  about this.
>
> One thing I've noticed is that all the papers I'm referencing focus on the
> English Wikipedia. When it comes to studies of other language editions, or
> across multiple ones, I've struggled to come up with a key paper to point
> to. Hopefully someone else chimes in and fills that hole, as it's important
> to recognize that "Wikipedia" doesn't equal the English one.
>
> Cited papers:
>
>- Viégas, F. B., Wattenberg, M., & Dave, K. (2004, April). Studying
>cooperation and conflict between authors with history flow
> visualizations.
>In *Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing
>systems* (pp. 575-582).
>- Priedhorsky, R., Chen, J., Lam, S. T. K., Panciera, K., Terveen, L., &
>Riedl, J. (2007, November). Creating, destroying, and restoring value in
>Wikipedia. In *Proceedings of the 2007 international ACM conference on
>Supporting group work* (pp. 259-268).
>- Halfaker, A., Geiger, R. S., Morgan, J. T., & Riedl, J. (2013). The
>rise and decline of an open collaboration system: How Wikipedia’s
> reaction
>to popularity is causing its decline. *American Behavioral Scientist*,
>*57*(5), 664-688.
>- Morgan, J. T., Bouterse, S., Walls, H., & Stierch, S. (2013,
>February). Tea and sympathy: crafting positive new user experiences on
>wikipedia. In *Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported
>cooperative work* (pp. 839-848).
>Hill, Benjamin Mako. “Essays on Volunteer Mobilization in Peer
>Production.” Ph.D. 

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Bibliography of wiki related works

[Jonathan Morgan]

Hi Ziko,

How about WikiData? There are some scholarly articles about Wikipedia there
already: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q21679410

Cheers,
J

On Sat, Oct 10, 2020 at 3:27 AM Ziko van Dijk  wrote:

> Dear colleagues,
>
> Here a remark/question(s) about the way how we keep record in the
> Wikimedia movement with regard to research papers and books about wiki
> related topics.
>
> It seems to me that we have several pages for collaborative collecting
> the titles. For example, my first look would lead me to a bibliography
> page on Meta-Wiki [1]. But we have also such a page on Englisch WP [2]
> and on German WP, even two [3] etc.
>
> Sometimes the pages have different goals: do they collect "all"
> literature" or only "relevant" titles or titles in a specific
> language; or are they rather a list of "recommended" works etc.
> Often, the pages are obviously incomplete and not up to date. Some end
> with the year 2019 (or actually, were not continued in the Corona
> times?).
>
> What do you think? Did I simply not find the "right" page? Or what
> would be the best solution for creating one single page or database of
> wiki related works? Including machine readable information about
> language, specific sub topic, links to reviews etc.?
>
> And, of course, there remains the question what is actually a wiki
> related work. Often a book does not have "wiki" in its title but deals
> with "online creation communities" or "peer production" or "social
> media" and has a large chapter on wikis.
>
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
>
>
> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Research_Bibliography
> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_studies_of_Wikipedia
> [3] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedistik/Bibliographie
> and https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedistik/Arbeiten
>
> ___
> 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] Asperges, ADHD and editors

[Jonathan Morgan]

Gerard,

To clarify, what grosses me out ("makes me uncomfortable") is the prospect
of third parties gathering and storing sensitive personal information about
individual Wikipedia editors without proper oversight mechanisms. Health
and medical data is one of the most sensitive kinds of individual data that
exists. In the United States, as in many other countries, access to this
information is heavily regulated--as it should be. Researchers who gather
this kind of data should be held to a very high standard of proof that they
will use the data responsibly, and take specific care to avoid information
leakage. Ideally, they should be held legally responsible for proper
behavior--and that depends heavily on their local jurisdiction and on their
own truthfulness and transparency--things the rest of us in the movement
have little control over. In my opinion, anyone who cares about both
science and ethics should always err on the side of avoiding harm
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belmont_Report>--even if that sometimes
means refraining from asking research questions that have scientific merit
or that could yield practical community benefit.

To your comment about Clarice Phelps, I'm not aware of this individual (or
article?) and do not know what you are referring to. But I would caution
you not to make public speculative statements about the mental health
status of any editor, or make generalizations about the motivations or
actions of all people who you believe have particular mental
characteristics, based on specific incidents you have witnessed or
interactions you have had. If I have misread your statement, I apologize
for the error.

Best,
Jonathan

On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 11:29 AM Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> We regularly have problems with people. We have people who are banned
> because people think they are problematic. We have banned people who have
> contributed hugely to our projects. The notion that it is stigmatising is a
> notion whereby we wash our hands in innocence, we do not want to know.
>
> It is one thing that you personally are grossed out but I hope you
> understand that given that this is an issue we need to address. It is not
> only people who do not care for rules, it is also the people who obsess
> about rules. You find it in the excessive attention for Clarice Phelps.
> People do get hurt, people do get traumatised because of this inattention.
> Thanks,
>    GerardM
>
> On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 17:58, Jonathan Morgan 
> wrote:
>
> > There's this study
> > <
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:The_Construction_and_Application_of_Personality_Profile_Based_on_User_Behavior_in_Wikipedia
> > >
> > but I don't know if it was ever completed (and as you can infer from my
> > posts on the talkpage, I very much hope it was NOT).
> >
> > In general, any kind of psychometric profiling of Wikipedia editors kind
> of
> > grosses me out. But as an armchair psychologist myself, as well as a
> > non-neurotypical individual, sure I'm happy to hypothesize that there are
> > many of us in the projects. It takes a certain mindset to find the
> process
> > of building an encyclopedia using 20-year old software paradigms to be
> > engaging ;)
> >
> > - J
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 8:49 AM RhinosF1 -  wrote:
> >
> > > Evening all,
> > >
> > > I hope everyone is doing well given the crazy world we’re living in.
> > >
> > > I was having a conversation with a few users on Discord today and we
> were
> > > wondering whether wikimedia (or users of other similiar sites would be
> > > fine) disproportinately fall into the category of having aspergers,
> ADHD
> > > and other simmilar conditions.
> > >
> > > It would be even better if anyone knew what sort of areas these users
> > were
> > > more likely to work in.
> > >
> > > Following a chat with Issac in #wikimedia-research, I understand there
> > > isn’t much support for this kind of research as users may not want to
> > > reveal this information and there is no clear reason for collecting the
> > > information but if anyone knows of past research or has any
> information,
> > > that would be helpful.
> > >
> > > Stay Safe,
> > > RhinosF1
> > > --
> > > Thanks,
> > > Samuel
> > > ___
> > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jonathan T. Morgan
> > Senior Design Researcher
> > Wikim

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Asperges, ADHD and editors

[Jonathan Morgan]

There's this study

but I don't know if it was ever completed (and as you can infer from my
posts on the talkpage, I very much hope it was NOT).

In general, any kind of psychometric profiling of Wikipedia editors kind of
grosses me out. But as an armchair psychologist myself, as well as a
non-neurotypical individual, sure I'm happy to hypothesize that there are
many of us in the projects. It takes a certain mindset to find the process
of building an encyclopedia using 20-year old software paradigms to be
engaging ;)

- J

On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 8:49 AM RhinosF1 -  wrote:

> Evening all,
>
> I hope everyone is doing well given the crazy world we’re living in.
>
> I was having a conversation with a few users on Discord today and we were
> wondering whether wikimedia (or users of other similiar sites would be
> fine) disproportinately fall into the category of having aspergers, ADHD
> and other simmilar conditions.
>
> It would be even better if anyone knew what sort of areas these users were
> more likely to work in.
>
> Following a chat with Issac in #wikimedia-research, I understand there
> isn’t much support for this kind of research as users may not want to
> reveal this information and there is no clear reason for collecting the
> information but if anyone knows of past research or has any information,
> that would be helpful.
>
> Stay Safe,
> RhinosF1
> --
> Thanks,
> Samuel
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>


-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) 
(Uses He/Him)

*Please note that I do not expect a response from you on evenings or
weekends*
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

[Wiki-research-l] MOSS launches COVID-19 Solutions Fund

[Jonathan Morgan]

FYI:
https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2020/03/31/moss-launches-covid-19-solutions-fund/

From the announcement: *"Mozilla is announcing today the creation of a
COVID-19 Solutions Fund as part of the Mozilla Open Source Support Program
(MOSS). Through this fund, we will provide awards of up to $50,000 each to
open source technology projects which are responding to the COVID-19
pandemic in some way. *

*The MOSS Program, created in 2015, broadens access, increases security,
and empowers users by providing catalytic funding to open source
technologists. We have already seen inspiring examples of open source
technology being used to increase the capacity of the world’s healthcare
systems to cope with this crisis. For example, just a few days ago, the
University of Florida Center for Safety, Simulation, and Advanced Learning
Technologies released an open source ventilator
.
We believe there are many more life-saving open source technologies in the
world.*

*As part of the COVID-19 Solutions Fund, we will accept applications that
are hardware (e.g., an open source ventilator), software (e.g., a platform
that connects hospitals with people who have 3D printers who can print
parts for that open source ventilator), as well as software that solves for
secondary effects of COVID-19 (e.g., a browser plugin that combats COVID
related misinformation)."*

-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) 
(Uses He/Him)

*Please note that I do not expect a response from you on evenings or
weekends*
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Announcement] Daily Social Media Traffic Report for English Wikipedia articles

[Jonathan Morgan]

Stuart,

This is possible. I talked to Isaac Johnson about this today. Basically,
we'd need to build a regularly-updated database of articles-by-wikiproject
(by parsing the wikiproject template on the talkpage, say). Then we could
list all wikiprojects associated with each article and/or create some bot
that notified each wikiproject if an article within its scope exceeded some
traffic parameter.

But this is a lot of work, but I've captured the proposal here
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Research_talk:Social_media_traffic_report_pilot=19925063=19923754=source>
for future reference. Thanks!

Jonathan

On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 3:22 PM Stuart A. Yeates  wrote:

> My immediate thought is how to connect this to the wiki projects for each
> article, because wiki projects are the primary sources of expert knowledge
> and have the resources to deal with many issues.
>
> Cheers
> Stuart
>
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2020, 8:24 AM Jonathan Morgan, 
> wrote:
>
> > The WMF Research team has published a new pageview report of inbound
> > traffic coming from Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Reddit.[1]
> >
> > The report contains a list of all articles that received at least 500
> views
> > from one or more of these platforms (i.e. someone clicked a link on
> Twitter
> > that sent them directly to a Wikipedia article). The report is available
> > on-wiki and will be updated daily at around 14:00 UTC with traffic counts
> > from the previous calendar day.
> >
> > We believe this report provides editors with a valuable new information
> > source. Daily inbound social media traffic stats can help editors monitor
> > edits to articles that are going viral on social media sites and/or are
> > being linked to by the social media platform itself in order to
> fact-check
> > disinformation and other controversial content[2][3].
> >
> > The social media traffic report also contains additional public article
> > metadata that may be useful in the context of monitoring articles that
> are
> > receiving unexpected attention from social media sites, such as...
> >
> >- the total number of pageviews (from all sources) that article
> received
> >in the same period of time
> >- the number of pageviews the article received from the same platform
> >(e.g. Facebook) the previous day (two days ago)
> >- the number of editors who have the page on their watchlist
> >- the number of editors who have watchlisted the page AND recently
> >visited it
> >
> > We want your feedback! We have some ideas of our own for how to improve
> the
> > report, but we want to hear yours! If you have feature suggestions,
> please
> > add them here.[4] We intend to maintain this daily report for at least
> the
> > next two months. If we receive feedback that the report is useful, we are
> > considering making it available indefinitely.
> >
> > If you have other questions about the report, please first check out our
> > (still growing) FAQ [5]. All questions, comments, concerns, ideas, etc.
> are
> > welcome on the project talkpage on Meta.[4]
> >
> > 1.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HostBot/Social_media_traffic_report
> > 2.
> >
> >
> https://www.engadget.com/2018/03/15/wikipedia-unaware-would-be-youtube-fact-checker/
> > 3.
> >
> >
> https://mashable.com/2017/10/05/facebook-wikipedia-context-articles-news-feed/
> > 4.
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Social_media_traffic_report_pilot
> > 5.
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Social_media_traffic_report_pilot/About
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Jonathan
> >
> > --
> > Jonathan T. Morgan
> > Senior Design Researcher
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > User:Jmorgan (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)>
> > (Uses He/Him)
> >
> > *Please note that I do not expect a response from you on evenings or
> > weekends*
> > ___
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>


-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)>
(Uses He/Him)

*Please note that I do not expect a response from you on evenings or
weekends*
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Announcement] Daily Social Media Traffic Report for English Wikipedia articles

[Jonathan Morgan]

Gerard,

It's a pilot, so it's not available for other wikis yet. If we receive
community feedback that indicates that the resource is welcome and is being
used, we will definitely lobby for making this resource available for all
wikis, on a long-term basis.

If you would like to see this resource maintained, experiment with it and
provide feedback
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Social_media_traffic_report_pilot>
!

Best,
Jonathan

On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 10:53 PM Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Does this work for any Wikipedia? If so, where can I find it for the Dutch,
> the German, the French, the Chinese, the Russian Wikipedia??
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 at 20:24, Jonathan Morgan 
> wrote:
>
> > The WMF Research team has published a new pageview report of inbound
> > traffic coming from Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Reddit.[1]
> >
> > The report contains a list of all articles that received at least 500
> views
> > from one or more of these platforms (i.e. someone clicked a link on
> Twitter
> > that sent them directly to a Wikipedia article). The report is available
> > on-wiki and will be updated daily at around 14:00 UTC with traffic counts
> > from the previous calendar day.
> >
> > We believe this report provides editors with a valuable new information
> > source. Daily inbound social media traffic stats can help editors monitor
> > edits to articles that are going viral on social media sites and/or are
> > being linked to by the social media platform itself in order to
> fact-check
> > disinformation and other controversial content[2][3].
> >
> > The social media traffic report also contains additional public article
> > metadata that may be useful in the context of monitoring articles that
> are
> > receiving unexpected attention from social media sites, such as...
> >
> >- the total number of pageviews (from all sources) that article
> received
> >in the same period of time
> >- the number of pageviews the article received from the same platform
> >(e.g. Facebook) the previous day (two days ago)
> >- the number of editors who have the page on their watchlist
> >- the number of editors who have watchlisted the page AND recently
> >visited it
> >
> > We want your feedback! We have some ideas of our own for how to improve
> the
> > report, but we want to hear yours! If you have feature suggestions,
> please
> > add them here.[4] We intend to maintain this daily report for at least
> the
> > next two months. If we receive feedback that the report is useful, we are
> > considering making it available indefinitely.
> >
> > If you have other questions about the report, please first check out our
> > (still growing) FAQ [5]. All questions, comments, concerns, ideas, etc.
> are
> > welcome on the project talkpage on Meta.[4]
> >
> > 1.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HostBot/Social_media_traffic_report
> > 2.
> >
> >
> https://www.engadget.com/2018/03/15/wikipedia-unaware-would-be-youtube-fact-checker/
> > 3.
> >
> >
> https://mashable.com/2017/10/05/facebook-wikipedia-context-articles-news-feed/
> > 4.
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Social_media_traffic_report_pilot
> > 5.
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Social_media_traffic_report_pilot/About
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Jonathan
> >
> > --
> > Jonathan T. Morgan
> > Senior Design Researcher
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > User:Jmorgan (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)>
> > (Uses He/Him)
> >
> > *Please note that I do not expect a response from you on evenings or
> > weekends*
> > ___
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>


-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)>
(Uses He/Him)

*Please note that I do not expect a response from you on evenings or
weekends*
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

[Wiki-research-l] [Announcement] Daily Social Media Traffic Report for English Wikipedia articles

[Jonathan Morgan]

The WMF Research team has published a new pageview report of inbound
traffic coming from Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Reddit.[1]

The report contains a list of all articles that received at least 500 views
from one or more of these platforms (i.e. someone clicked a link on Twitter
that sent them directly to a Wikipedia article). The report is available
on-wiki and will be updated daily at around 14:00 UTC with traffic counts
from the previous calendar day.

We believe this report provides editors with a valuable new information
source. Daily inbound social media traffic stats can help editors monitor
edits to articles that are going viral on social media sites and/or are
being linked to by the social media platform itself in order to fact-check
disinformation and other controversial content[2][3].

The social media traffic report also contains additional public article
metadata that may be useful in the context of monitoring articles that are
receiving unexpected attention from social media sites, such as...

   - the total number of pageviews (from all sources) that article received
   in the same period of time
   - the number of pageviews the article received from the same platform
   (e.g. Facebook) the previous day (two days ago)
   - the number of editors who have the page on their watchlist
   - the number of editors who have watchlisted the page AND recently
   visited it

We want your feedback! We have some ideas of our own for how to improve the
report, but we want to hear yours! If you have feature suggestions, please
add them here.[4] We intend to maintain this daily report for at least the
next two months. If we receive feedback that the report is useful, we are
considering making it available indefinitely.

If you have other questions about the report, please first check out our
(still growing) FAQ [5]. All questions, comments, concerns, ideas, etc. are
welcome on the project talkpage on Meta.[4]

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HostBot/Social_media_traffic_report
2.
https://www.engadget.com/2018/03/15/wikipedia-unaware-would-be-youtube-fact-checker/
3.
https://mashable.com/2017/10/05/facebook-wikipedia-context-articles-news-feed/
4.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Social_media_traffic_report_pilot
5.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Social_media_traffic_report_pilot/About

Cheers,
Jonathan

-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) 
(Uses He/Him)

*Please note that I do not expect a response from you on evenings or
weekends*
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Announcing Citation Detective, a public dataset of sentences missing citations

[Jonathan Morgan]

Thank you Aiko! This is excellent work. Thank you for helping us offer this
valuable new data service to the Wikimedia Movement.

Best,
Jonathan

On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 6:03 AM Ai-Jou Chou  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I’m happy to announce the outcome of an Outreachy internship
> <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T233707> that I’m finishing up. It is a
> new tool and public dataset named Citation Detective which tool developers
> and researchers can now use for their projects.
>
> Citation Detective <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Citation_Detective>
> contains sentences that have been identified as needing a citation using a
> machine learning-based classifier published earlier last year
> <https://arxiv.org/pdf/1902.6.pdf> by WMF researchers and
> collaborators. As part of Outreachy, I developed a tool
> <https://github.com/AikoChou/citationdetective> (hosted on Toolforge
> <https://tools.wmflabs.org>) to run through Wikipedia and extract
> high-scoring sentences along with contextual information.
>
> As an example use case for this data, I also created a proof of concept for
> integrating Citation Detective and Citation Hunt
> <https://tools.wmflabs.org/citationhunt>. Check out my prototype Citation
> Hunt <https://tools.wmflabs.org/aiko-citationhunt>, which uses Citation
> Detective to import sentences that would not normally be featured in
> Citation Hunt. The repository for that is here
> <https://github.com/AikoChou/citationhunt>.
>
> This dataset currently includes sentences from ~120,000 randomly selected
> articles from the English Wikipedia. In future work, we hope to expand this
> to more language Wikipedia projects and a greater number of articles. It is
> also possible to expand the database to contain more fields in a future
> version according to feedback from tool developers and researchers. More
> use cases for this type of data were identified in a design research
> project
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Identification_of_Unsourced_Statements/API_design_research
> >
> conducted last year by Jonathan Morgan.
>
> You can find more information in our Wiki Workshop submission
> <
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Citation_Detective_WikiWorkshop2020.pdf
> >
> and in my blog <https://rollingmist.home.blog/> which documented the whole
> journey.
>
> Thank you very much!
>
> Kind regard,
> Aiko
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>


-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)>
(Uses He/Him)

*Please note that I do not expect a response from you on evenings or
weekends*
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Modelling user behaviour on Wikipedia

[Jonathan Morgan]

Hi Kiril!

Thanks for all the patient and thoughtful clarifications and elaborations
:)  I left a couple of comments inline, below.

Good luck with your project! As you can tell, we are a curious and
thoughtful group here on wikiresearch-l. If you have methodological
questions in the future, please don't hesitate to ask them here.

On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 11:43 AM Kiril Simeonovski <
kiril.simeonov...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Jonathan,
>
> You have correctly deduced from the description that there will not be any
> interaction with editors and all the data for the research will be drawn
> from the publicly available edit histories. The most confusing part that
> gives impression of intervening is perhaps the "experiment", which
> conceptually differs in the social sciences from its more common meaning in
> a laboratory environment. That said, this research is not going to consume
> editor's time for surveys nor it is going to convert Wikipedia to a
> laboratory or ask people to change their behaviour.
>
> I came here with the announcement after creating the proposal on Meta and
> following the guidelines regarding research projects with the goal of
> getting some useful input from other researchers subscribed to the mailing
> list and learning how to administratively proceed with the proposal on Meta
> (What should be done next on Meta? Will there be an appointed WMF
> researcher to contact regarding this research?).
>


Putting your research proposal on Meta is best practice for all research
projects related to Wikimedia. It is not a required step, but it's useful
for increasing awareness of your project among the broader Wikimedia
communities (researchers and everyone else).

There is nothing else you need to do at this point, although we appreciate
it if you would keep your project page up to date as you perform your
research. When you're done, we always appreciate it if you link to any
preprints, demos, code repos, slide decks, etc from that page as well.

Your project won't automatically be assigned a WMF contact. The Wikimedia
Foundation itself does not officially monitor or screen new research
projects that are published on Meta, or review them for support. However,
if you believe your research furthers the goals of the Wikimedia Movement,
you might consider applying for a grant (example
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Misinformation_And_Its_Discontents:_Narrative_Recommendations_on_Wikipedia%27s_Vulnerabilities_and_Resilience>).


Individual WMF teams (including my team, Research) do occasionally partner
with external researchers
<https://research.wikimedia.org/collaborators.html> and those partnerships
can include access to non-public data (under a Non-Disclosure Agreement).
Some partnerships do involve funding, but this is not common. All
partnerships are at the discretion of the team manager. In the case of my
team, that manager is Leila Zia, Head of Research.

 Quick question: when you say "the guidelines regarding research projects"
above, what document are you referring to? There are a lot of these pages
in the Research namespace and they are not always up to date, unfortunately.


> My request for help from research community regarding this research will be
> mostly technical (e.g. smart random sampling of editors, existing tools for
> research purposes, etc.)
>

We can definitely help you with these questions! You can also post
questions related to data access and data infrastructure to the analytics
mailing list <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics>.


>
> Best,
> Kiril
>
> On Tue 25. Feb 2020 at 17:06, Jonathan Morgan 
> wrote:
>
> > Taking a quick step back from all the very enthusiastic questioning of
> the
> > researcher's motives...
> >
> > Kiril,
> >
> > Regarding your methods, Your proposal states
> > <
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Modelling_Behaviour_in_a_Peer_Production_Economy_upon_Evidence_from_Wikipedia
> > >
> > that for this study "The editors will be sampled from the pool of
> > contributors to all language editions over Wikipedia's entire history and
> > will be classified into groups based on their longevity on the project."
> > But it says little more than that.
> >
> > When I read this description, it does not sound to me like you will
> > necessarily be contacting editors for this study, or intervening in any
> way
> > into Wikipedia. Stuart and Pine's questions seem to assume that you will
> be
> > in some way recruiting editors as participants, asking them to change
> their
> > behavior, asking them questions, etc.
> >
> > *Will you be performing any of the above activities?* If not, the
> questions
> > asked so far may b

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Modelling user behaviour on Wikipedia

[Jonathan Morgan]

Taking a quick step back from all the very enthusiastic questioning of the
researcher's motives...

Kiril,

Regarding your methods, Your proposal states

that for this study "The editors will be sampled from the pool of
contributors to all language editions over Wikipedia's entire history and
will be classified into groups based on their longevity on the project."
But it says little more than that.

When I read this description, it does not sound to me like you will
necessarily be contacting editors for this study, or intervening in any way
into Wikipedia. Stuart and Pine's questions seem to assume that you will be
in some way recruiting editors as participants, asking them to change their
behavior, asking them questions, etc.

*Will you be performing any of the above activities?* If not, the questions
asked so far may be beside the point. Anyone is free to perform analysis on
publicly available and free-licensed data.

If you do plan to intervene in Wikipedia in some way, or work with editors
as research participants or co-researchers, and you would like the members
of this mailing list to provide you with feedback or other support, please
describe the support or feedback you would like to receive in more detail.

If your study is non-interventionist but you still want feedback, we can
provide that too. Perhaps you can be more clear about the kind of feedback
you want; that will keep the conversation going in an interesting and
productive direction that everyone on the list can benefit from.

Finally, we the members of this list (whether volunteers or WMF staff) are
not peer reviewers, do not speak for the Wikipedia community, and are not
empowered to approve or deny research requests.

Best,
Jonathan

On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 11:23 PM Kiril Simeonovski <
kiril.simeonov...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Stuart,
>
> Thank you for your thoughts so far. I really like how the discussion is
> progressing.
>
> The methodology will, of course, yield other results about editor dynamics
> and growth paths. Paid editing and sock puppetry as systemic risk factors
> could be included in the model exogenously but it might be possible to
> endogenise them in any future research. At this stage, the most important
> thing is to lay the grounds for developing a sensible model that can be
> later upgraded with new assumptions.
>
> As for the editing experience, I've been around since 2008 (this is my edit
> log  >
> ).
>
> Best,
> Kiril
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 12:37 AM Stuart A. Yeates 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Kiril
> >
> > Let's just say that history has taught us to be risk-averse to
> > drive-by researchers.
> >
> > Can you point us to other research output using this methodology? Do
> > you (or any of your team) have significant editing experience? Are you
> > familiar with the firestorm that is paid editing and sock puppetry??
> >
> > cheers
> > stuart
> >
> > --
> > ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
> >
> > On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 10:43, Kiril Simeonovski
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Pine,
> > >
> > > The findings from the research will be articulated to draw clear
> > > conclusions about what causes utility and disutility from
> participation,
> > > and how this is perceived by different editors. For instance, it is
> > natural
> > > to assume that editors come to contribute by adding content that will
> > > remain visible, while blocks and reverted edits are risk factors that
> > drive
> > > them away, although different editors have different levels of risk
> > > aversion. Similarly to any other research, the benefit for the
> community
> > > and individual editors is going to be indirect but yet not
> insignificant
> > to
> > > be accepted in the future process of decision-making (if the research
> > > demonstrates the existence of high level of risk aversion towards
> > > something, then it automatically signals that doing that thing is
> harmful
> > > for the environment).
> > >
> > > I know that it's impossible to predict the extent to which this
> research
> > > would make impact because the body of literature is very poor on
> > > volunteer-driven environments in a dynamic setting but it's definitely
> > > worth to start off something that might attract the attention of
> > > researchers in this direction. At the end, the research is not meant to
> > > carve rules in stone that any single editor should respect but rather
> to
> > > suggest something that individuals and communities might find useful
> (the
> > > means of doing this will definitely not turn Wikipedia into a
> laboratory
> > or
> > > put someone's privacy in danger).
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Kiril
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 9:43 PM Pine W  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Kiril,
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for sharing your proposal.
> > > >
> > > > I am 

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Analytics] Active meta users v active wikimedia users

[Jonathan Morgan]

(Last reply to both lists; sorry for the spam)

This sounds like it'd be a bit of work to build, and I don't think there
are curated datasets to help out. I think you would need to...

1. get the count of active editors on Meta for [PERIOD OF TIME]. Easy.
2. perform a query or parse dumps to get the *list *of active editors from
every individual Wikimedia project for the same [PERIOD OF TIME]. Hard.
3. de-duplicate that list (since many people edit multiple wikis in a given
say, month, and you don't want to overcount). Pretty easy.
4. compare the resulting all-projects count with the Meta-only count. Easy.

This sounds like a lot of work to me! Again, there might be tools or
resources for this that already exist, but I'm not aware of them.

It seems like having topline/platform-level counts for active editors could
be useful, as a dashboard or a public dataset. You might try requesting
this as a feature
<https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/maniphest/task/edit/?title=Wikistats%20New%20Feature=Analytics-Wikistats,Analytics>
for WikiStats. The worst they can say is "no", or "not yet" :)

- J


On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 12:34 PM RhinosF1 -  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I’ve just seen the replies and thanks to everyone whose replied.
>
> I was looking to try and work out what percent lf the active wikimedia
> community are participating on meta and comparing to another wiki farm. Any
> thoughts on that?
>
> RhinosF1
>
> On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 at 20:31, Aaron Halfaker 
> wrote:
>
> > It doesn't look like Active Editors works for all wikis.  I think you'd
> > have to merge activity across all wikis to get a stat like that. I'm not
> > sure I know of a good data strategy to get that.
> >
> > If you were to query it with quarry, you'd need to write a query for
> every
> > wiki and then write some code to merge the results.  Oof.
> >
> > If you to extract it from the XML dumps, you'd need to process each Wiki
> > separately and then merge the results.  Oof.
> >
> > The best solution to this is to have a common table/relation across all
> > Wikis and to aggregate from there.  I don't think there's any such
> > cross-wiki table/relation available.
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 1:38 PM Jonathan Morgan 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Same dashboard, but for "All wikis":
> > > https://stats.wikimedia.org/v2/#/all-projects
> > >
> > > That work?
> > >
> > > - J
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 11:32 AM RhinosF1 -  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > That provides active users for meta but not globally. Anything for
> > > global?
> > > >
> > > > RhinosF1
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 at 18:10, Jonathan Morgan 
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > RhinosF1,
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you looking for information like this
> > > > > <https://stats.wikimedia.org/v2/#/meta.wikimedia.org>, or
> something
> > > > > different?
> > > > >
> > > > > - J
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 8:51 AM RhinosF1 - 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Does anyone know a way to find out how many  wikimedia users are
> > > active
> > > > > > globally compared to active on metawiki?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This mean they've made more than 5 edits in the last 30 days for
> > > this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > RhinosF1
> > > > > > ___
> > > > > > Analytics mailing list
> > > > > > analyt...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Jonathan T. Morgan
> > > > > Senior Design Researcher
> > > > > Wikimedia Foundation
> > > > > User:Jmorgan (WMF) <
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)
> > > >
> > > > > (Uses He/Him)
> > > > > ___
> > > > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > > > > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > > > >
> > 

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Analytics] Active meta users v active wikimedia users

[Jonathan Morgan]

Same dashboard, but for "All wikis":
https://stats.wikimedia.org/v2/#/all-projects

That work?

- J

On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 11:32 AM RhinosF1 -  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> That provides active users for meta but not globally. Anything for global?
>
> RhinosF1
>
> On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 at 18:10, Jonathan Morgan 
> wrote:
>
> > RhinosF1,
> >
> > Are you looking for information like this
> > <https://stats.wikimedia.org/v2/#/meta.wikimedia.org>, or something
> > different?
> >
> > - J
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 8:51 AM RhinosF1 -  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Does anyone know a way to find out how many  wikimedia users are active
> > > globally compared to active on metawiki?
> > >
> > > This mean they've made more than 5 edits in the last 30 days for this.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > RhinosF1
> > > ___
> > > Analytics mailing list
> > > analyt...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jonathan T. Morgan
> > Senior Design Researcher
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > User:Jmorgan (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)>
> > (Uses He/Him)
> > ___
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>


-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)>
(Uses He/Him)
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Analytics] Active meta users v active wikimedia users

[Jonathan Morgan]

RhinosF1,

Are you looking for information like this
, or something
different?

- J

On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 8:51 AM RhinosF1 -  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Does anyone know a way to find out how many  wikimedia users are active
> globally compared to active on metawiki?
>
> This mean they've made more than 5 edits in the last 30 days for this.
>
> Thanks,
> RhinosF1
> ___
> Analytics mailing list
> analyt...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
>


-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) 
(Uses He/Him)
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Analytics] Introducing statistics for media files

[Jonathan Morgan]

New datasets = new potential research questions ;)

-- Forwarded message -
From: Francisco Dans 
Date: Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 9:52 AM
Subject: [Analytics] Introducing statistics for media files
To: A mailing list for the Analytics Team at WMF and everybody who has an
interest in Wikipedia and analytics. 


Hi everybody,

Just in time for the holidays, we're announcing the addition of Media
Requests to our metrics catalog. Over the last few months we've been
working on a dataset offering request numbers for every single image,
audio, video and document in the Wiki universe, since 2015.

This means we have 3 new metrics available in the Analytics Query Service:

   - Media requests per referrer: e.g. how many images, audio, videos...
   have been accessed from English Wikipedia in the last month? *73 billion
   for November
   
.*
   - Media requests per file: e.g. how many hits did this cool painting
   
   get in November? The answer is 483,791 hits
   

   .
   - Top files by media requests: e.g. what was the most popular video
   yesterday, December 22nd? Fred Rogers testifying before the Senate
   Subcommittee on Communications
   
.
   Fun! You can check out the top 1000 media files for any month or day, for
   any media type.

Media requests is, in terms of absolute numbers, a huge dataset, so the per
file and top metrics are still being loaded with data all the way to 2015.
We expect this loading to finish in mid January.

You can read more about this in Wikitech
. As usual
if you have any questions about the dataset or the new metrics please send
them our way here on the list or via Phabricator.

Happy holidays!
Francisco + the A team
-- 
*Francisco Dans (él, he, 彼)*
Software Engineer, Analytics Team
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Analytics mailing list
analyt...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics


-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) 
(Uses He/Him)
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] sockpuppets and how to find them sooner

[Jonathan Morgan]

Nemo,

Can you please elaborate on what use of language, and whose use of
language, you are criticizing? It is not clear from your email what
"jargon" you refer to, and why you feel it is inappropriate.

Jonathan

On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 12:59 AM Federico Leva (Nemo) 
wrote:

> Please everyone avoid using jargon specific to the English Wikipedia on
> this cross-language and cross-wiki mailing list.
>
> Aaron Halfaker, 23/08/19 17:36:
> > I think embeddings[1] would be a nice way to create a signature.
>
> There is some discussion of acceptable user fingerprinting (presumably
> to be available to CheckUsers only), other than the usual over-reliance
> on IP addresses, in particular at
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:IP_Editing:_Privacy_Enhancement_and_Abuse_Mitigation
> >.
>
> Federico
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>


-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) 
(Uses He/Him)
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Analytics] [Wikimedia Research Showcase] June 26, 2019 at 11:30 AM PST, 19:30 UTC

[Jonathan Morgan]

RhinosF1,

All talks are recorded and archived on YouTube, so the link below should
still work. Let me know if there's a problem with the archiving and I'll
see what I can do. I'm also working on getting all slides linked to from
the Showcase page on me.org, whenever possible!

It was a great series of talks this week. Hope you enjoy it! -J

On Wed, Jun 26, 2019, 19:04 RhinosF1 Wikipedia  wrote:

> For those that couldn't make it, Is there are summary of what was said?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> RhinosF1
>
> On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 at 18:58, Janna Layton  wrote:
>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> Just a reminder that this event will be happening in about half an hour!
>> Here's the Youtube link again:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiUfpmeJG7E
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 9:14 AM Janna Layton 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Time correction:
>>>
>>> The next Research Showcase will be live-streamed next Wednesday, June
>>> 26, at *11:30 AM PDT/18:30 UTC*.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 4:11 PM Janna Layton 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hi all,

 The next Research Showcase will be live-streamed this Wednesday, June
 26, at 11:30 AM PST/19:30 UTC. We will have three presentations this
 showcase, all relating to Wikipedia blocks.

 YouTube stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiUfpmeJG7E

 As usual, you can join the conversation on IRC at #wikimedia-research.
 You can also watch our past research showcases here:
 https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Showcase

 This month's presentations:

 Trajectories of Blocked Community Members: Redemption, Recidivism and
 Departure

 By Jonathan Chang, Cornell University

 Community norm violations can impair constructive communication and
 collaboration online. As a defense mechanism, community moderators often
 address such transgressions by temporarily blocking the perpetrator. Such
 actions, however, come with the cost of potentially alienating community
 members. Given this tradeoff, it is essential to understand to what extent,
 and in which situations, this common moderation practice is effective in
 reinforcing community rules. In this work, we introduce a computational
 framework for studying the future behavior of blocked users on Wikipedia.
 After their block expires, they can take several distinct paths: they can
 reform and adhere to the rules, but they can also recidivate, or
 straight-out abandon the community. We reveal that these trajectories are
 tied to factors rooted both in the characteristics of the blocked
 individual and in whether they perceived the block to be fair and
 justified. Based on these insights, we formulate a series of prediction
 tasks aiming to determine which of these paths a user is likely to take
 after being blocked for their first offense, and demonstrate the
 feasibility of these new tasks. Overall, this work builds towards a more
 nuanced approach to moderation by highlighting the tradeoffs that are in
 play.


 Automatic Detection of Online Abuse in Wikipedia

 By Lane Rasberry, University of Virginia

 Researchers analyzed all English Wikipedia blocks prior to 2018 using
 machine learning. With insights gained, the researchers examined all
 English Wikipedia users who are not blocked against the identified
 characteristics of blocked users. The results were a ranked set of
 predictions of users who are not blocked, but who have a history of conduct
 similar to that of blocked users. This research and process models a system
 for the use of computing to aid human moderators in identifying conduct on
 English Wikipedia which merits a block.

 Project page:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/University_of_Virginia/Automatic_Detection_of_Online_Abuse

 Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIhdb4-hKBo


 First Insights from Partial Blocks in Wikimedia Wikis

 By Morten Warncke-Wang, Wikimedia Foundation

 The Anti-Harassment Tools team at the Wikimedia Foundation released the
 partial block feature in early 2019. Where previously blocks on Wikimedia
 wikis were sitewide (users were blocked from editing an entire wiki),
 partial blocks makes it possible to block users from editing specific pages
 and/or namespaces. The Italian Wikipedia was the first wiki to start using
 this feature, and it has since been rolled out to other wikis as well. In
 this presentation, we will look at how this feature has been used in the
 first few months since release.


 --
 Janna Layton (she, her)
 Administrative Assistant - Audiences & Technology
 Wikimedia Foundation 

>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Janna Layton (she, her)
>>> Administrative Assistant - Audiences & Technology
>>> Wikimedia Foundation 
>>>

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Research showcase for May

[Jonathan Morgan]

*not going to be recorded

On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 8:57 AM Jonathan Morgan 
wrote:

> Hi Pine,
>
> We're at the WIkiWorkshop <http://wikiworkshop.org/2019/> this week, so
> no Showcase.* We'll be back next month (exact date TBD; we originally
> inadvertently scheduled over Juneteenth so we'll need to move the showcase
> up or back a week). Check MediaWiki for updates!
>
> Best,
> Jonathan
>
> *perhaps anticipating your next question, no, unfortunately the
> WikiWorkshop is going being recorded
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 5:47 AM Pine W  wrote:
>
>> Hello Research-l,
>>
>> Does anyone know whether there will be a Wikimedia Research Showcase this
>> month? I think that these are usually scheduled for 3rd Wednesdays.
>>
>> Pine
>> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>> ___
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>
>
> --
> Jonathan T. Morgan
> Senior Design Researcher
> Wikimedia Foundation
> User:Jmorgan (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)>
>
>

-- 
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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Research showcase for May

[Jonathan Morgan]

Hi Pine,

We're at the WIkiWorkshop  this week, so no
Showcase.* We'll be back next month (exact date TBD; we originally
inadvertently scheduled over Juneteenth so we'll need to move the showcase
up or back a week). Check MediaWiki for updates!

Best,
Jonathan

*perhaps anticipating your next question, no, unfortunately the
WikiWorkshop is going being recorded

On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 5:47 AM Pine W  wrote:

> Hello Research-l,
>
> Does anyone know whether there will be a Wikimedia Research Showcase this
> month? I think that these are usually scheduled for 3rd Wednesdays.
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>


-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) 
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

[Wiki-research-l] Propose a Community Growth session at Wikimania before June 1!

[Jonathan Morgan]

Hello,

The Community Growth
<https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2019:Community_Growth> space at
Wikimania 2019 is now accepting submissions! The deadline for submission
<https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2019:Submissions> is June 1. See
below for submission topics and session formats.


In the Community Growth space, we will come together for discussions,
presentations, and workshops that address these questions:


   -

   What is and is not working around attracting and retaining newcomers?
   -

   How should Wikimedia activities evolve to help communities grow and
   flourish?
   -

   How should our technology and culture evolve to help new populations to
   come online, participate and become community members?


*Recommended topics. *While proposals related to all aspects of community
growth and newcomer experience are welcome, organizing team is particularly
interested in proposals related to:


   -

   Research on recruitment, activation and retention.
   -

   Technological approaches
   -

   On- and off-wiki engagement strategies
   -

   Supporting diversity and cross-cultural newcomer experiences
   -

   Lessons learned from beyond Wikimedia, and
   -

   The future of newcomers and editing


If you are interested in seeing presentations around additional topics, but
do not plan to submit a proposal, you can suggest additional topics here
<https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2019:Community_Growth#Topics_suggested_by_community_members>.


*Types of session.* We prefer sessions that are participatory, interactive,
promote conversations, and give a voice to parts of our movement that are
heard less often. We welcome the following session formats:


   -

   Roundtable discussion
   -

   Panel discussion
   -

   Lightning talk
   -

   Working session
   -

   Teaching session
   -

   Conference presentation


*Poster submissions.* Posters are also a good way to introduce a topic, or
show some results of an action. Please consider submitting one
<https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2019:Poster_session>!


More information about the Community Growth space, topics, and submission
formats is available on the proposal page
<https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2019:Community_Growth>.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Morgan

On behalf of the Community Growth leadership team

-- 
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] New research: predicting whether (and why) a Wikipedia sentence needs a citation

[Jonathan Morgan]

Hi all,

Miriam Redi and I just published a blog post summarizing some of our recent
research using machine learning to detect sentences that need citations, as
well as the reason why a citation is likely necessary for that sentence.

Read the blog post (high-level summary) here
,
wade into the details here
,
and ask questions and provide feedback here

.

Thanks,
Jonathan

-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) 
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] open position(s) in digital sociology

[Jonathan Morgan]

FWIW I personally think these kinds of posts are totally relevant and
useful. So as long as we don't get too many complaints, I plan to make them
as well!

- J

On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 1:20 PM Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'm not sure what the rules for posting such announcements at this list
> are, and historically I don't recall job posts sent (but CfPs, conference
> info etc - yes), so I apologize in advance if it is not suitable for the
> format.
>
> However, I believe that it is likely relevant to research many of the
> recipients do.
>
> Best,
>
> Dj
>
> Please, distribute and apologies also for cross posting.
>
> __
> MINDS (Management in Networked and Digital Societies) department at
> Kozminski University, a leading research-driven business school in the
> heart of Europe, is seeking to fill one or more open rank positions in
> digital sociology.
>
> The research areas of particular interest for the candidates include:
> -Social Network Analysis (SNA),
> -Large dataset analyses on primary data (self collected/scraped),
> -Other quantitative studies of online communities,
> -Qualitaitve studies of online communities and digital humanities,
> - Science and Technology Studies (STS) related to the Internet.
>
> We do not restrict the background of candidates to a particular field, as
> we believe that good research can be inspired and developed from different
> angles. However, we understand that the position may appeal particularly to
> people doing research in digital sociology, management, management science,
> data science, econometrics, computer science, information science, or
> digital humanities. If you are fluent in Python, R, Klingon, or Quenya,
> feel free to mention it on your cv.
>
> MINDS Department is a highly informal, relatively young team of
> researchers. We follow participative decision-making principles and, if
> invited for an interview, you can expect being interviewed and evaluated by
> all members of the team, irrespective of the rank you are applying for.
>
> We put great emphasis on internationalization and high academic standards.
> Over the last five years, MINDS Department faculty have gone on one-year
> research stays to Harvard University, Massachusetts Institute of
> Technology, Cornell University, University of California Berkeley, or New
> York University, among others. We regularly publish in JCR-listed journals
> and publish books in the leading academic presses (e.g. Stanford University
> Press, MIT Press, Oxford University Press, Palgrave, Edward Elgar, Ashgate,
> Routledge).
>
> Some of us are social movements activists, some are involved in the
> start-up culture (mentoring, seed funds, developing own businesses, etc.),
> and we generally value bringing a diverse experience to the table.
>
> We believe that research should be stellar solid and of high quality, but
> that it also should be fun. We offer flexibility, a lot of independence,
> and a friendly working culture.
>
> The deadline for sending your application is June, 1.
>
> More details: bit.ly/digital-sociology
>
> Feel free to contact me about the position as well.
>
> --
> 
> [http://crow.kozminski.edu.pl/minds.jpg]
>
> Dariusz Jemielniak, Ph.D.
> Professor of Management
> Chair of MINDS (Management in Networked and Digital Societies) Department
> Kozminski University
>  http://nerds.kozminski.edu.pl 
>
>
>
>
>
> Recent articles:
>
>   *   Dariusz Jemielniak, Gwinyai Masukume, Maciej Wilamowski (2019) The
> Most Influential Medical Journals According to Wikipedia: Quantitative
> Analysis
>  , Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21 (1), pp. e11429
>   *   Dariusz Jemielniak, Aleksandra Przegalinska, Agata Stasik (2018)
> Anecdotal evidence: understanding organizational reality through
> organizational humorous tales<
> http://nerds.kozminski.edu.pl/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/HUMOR-Anecdotal-evidence-understanding-organizational-reality-through-organizational-humorous-tales.pdf
> >
>  HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research 31:  3.  539–561.
>   *   Dariusz Jemielniak, Maciej Wilamowski (2017)  Cultural Diversity of
> Quality of Information on Wikipedias<
> http://crow.kozminski.edu.pl/papers/cultures%20of%20wikipedias.pdf>
>   Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 68:
> 10.  2460–2470.
>   *   Dariusz Jemielniak (2016)  Wikimedia Movement Governance: The Limits
> of A-Hierarchical Organization<
> http://www.crow.kozminski.edu.pl/papers/wikimedia_governance.pdf>
>   Journal of Organizational Change Management 29:  3.  361-378.
>   *   Dariusz Jemielniak, Eduard Aibar (2016)  Bridging the Gap Between
> Wikipedia and Academia<
> http://www.crow.kozminski.edu.pl/papers/bridging.pdf>
>   Journal of the Association for 

Re: [Wiki-research-l] What instructors think about teaching with Wikipedia AFTER having tried it?

[Jonathan Morgan]

Piotr,

I think this is an excellent topic, FWIW.

And I bet the Wikipedia Education Program would be interested in the
outcomes of this research. And they might be willing to point you to
potential interview candidates (tho, obviously, they have a strong
US/EnWiki bias, so it wouldn't be the complete picture).

Best,
J

On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 8:43 AM Juliana Bastos Marques 
wrote:

> I can add something to this, from my own experiences and from what
> colleagues have told me. Here are some negative feedbacks to the experience
> of teaching with Wikipedia. Not in any particular order:
>
> 1. Lack of support from the Wikipedia community (reversions, scaring
> newbies - depends on the specifics of each language community)
> 2. Lack of teacher's experience in editing and dealing with the community
> (leads to poor management fo issues in 1)
> 3. Problems with infrastructure in the university
> 4. Students lacking interest in editing, doing everything in the last
> minute and not caring about the outcome after the end of classes.
>
> Piotr, I'm very interested in following your research. I'd love to hear
> about studies examining these issues, and how they were/can be overcome.
>
> Greetings,
> Juliana
>
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 4:04 PM Piotr Konieczny  wrote:
>
> > I am mulling over a new research topic: what researchers think about
> > teaching with Wikipedia type of assignment AFTER having tried it? AFAIK
> > we have a lot of papers on how to teach with Wikipedia, some on effects
> > on students and some about what instructors think about Wikipedia in
> > general, but correct me if I am wrong, nobody has actually asked
> > instructors about their experience with it? And from my personal
> > experience with seeing such projects on Wikipedia, I think there's a lot
> > of people who try it once and don't come back and well, do we know why
> > outside educated guesses?
> >
> > Right now I am just brainstorming this idea, so any thoughts, up to and
> > including suggestions for what questions to ask, etc. are appreciated.
> >
> > Also, I am generally conducting solo research, and all my prior papers
> > on 'teaching with Wikipedia' have been solo authored (and my goal is as
> > always to turn this research into publishable paper), but if someone
> > really, really, really would want to join this project because they love
> > the idea, and would want to be a co-author of the future paper, and/or
> > present the results at a WikiSym or such that I sadly go to every five
> > years or so, feel free to send me a private message. No promises, but I
> > don't bite :)
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
>
>
> --
> www.domusaurea.org
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>


-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) 
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Vandalism

[Jonathan Morgan]

Tom,

You may be interested in the ORES Platform
, which provides a vandalism detection
service across many (but not all) Wikipedia languages. It works at the
revision level, not the user level, but I suppose you could filter and/or
aggregate.

Best,
Jonathan

On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 1:19 PM Kerry Raymond 
wrote:

> And, FWIW, I don’t think we have a flag on an edit saying that is
> vandalism. We have a history that can show an edit that is reverted. On
> inspection of the edit summary of the reversion, there may be some textual
> clues e.g. “rvv” a common abbreviation for “reverting vandalism”. There may
> be a message in the reverted IP’s talk page that uses words that suggest
> vandalism (noting that many of these messages are templates and so have
> highly predictable structure, usually with initially neutral terms like
> “not constructive” escalating to the explicit use of the word “vandalism”
> in some form). However, these messages may not specifically link to the
> problematic edit so you would be looking for talk page messages appearing
> “shortly” after the revert of the edit.
>
> Not all vandalism is immediately  detected; there may be a number of other
> edits intervening, which may make it impossible to revert.
>
> Not all vandalism is removed with revert, it may occur by “normal editing”
> perhaps as part of a larger edit.
>
> Not all reverted edits are vandalism. They may be well-intentioned but
> breach a Wikipedia policy (eg requirement for citation, present an opinion
> as a fact). Some acceptable edits get reverted for a range of (mostly
> unacceptable) reasons like gatekeeping, style errors, UI errors (if the GUI
> loads slowly, my click to say thanks sometimes turns into a revert!), etc.
>
> And finally, as someone who does her watch list diligently, sometimes you
> just can’t tell if an edit is vandalism. The classic is the small change in
> dates. If there is no citation or the citation is to a off-line resource or
> a deadlink, it may be impossible to tell if the changed information is a
> genuine correction or a deliberately damaging action. Obviously I may have
> my suspicions, but I do have the obligation to Assume Good Faith. It’s not
> easy.
>
> Kerry
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> > On 16 Jan 2019, at 9:03 pm, Thomas Stieve 
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Listserv,
> >
> > Hope all is well. I am mapping IP address edits per country for 271
> > language Wikipedias. I would like to exclude IP addresses that are
> > vandalism. I was thinking of using the ipblocks table for the IP
> addresses
> > to be excluded. Because this project is in so many different languages
> and
> > my programming skills are intermediate, I would like to use the Wikipedia
> > tables or registers that the Wikipedians in those language use to mark
> > vandalism. If anyone has another idea, I would be most grateful. Perhaps
> I
> > am missing a way that Wikipedians across languages are using to mark
> > vandalism.
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Tom
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thomas Stieve
> > Ph.D. Candidate
> > School of Geography and Development
> > University of Arizona
> > ___
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>


-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) 
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] question - Psychiatry studies

[Jonathan Morgan]

Hi Juliana,

Nothing comes to mind. Although there's been a good deal of high-profile
research on editor motivation, which should be discoverable via Google
Scholar.

And I see there's currently a research project written up on Meta

that proposes to evaluate editors based on the Big 5 Personality
questionnaire. However, probably no one should participate in that study;
they don't say anything about what they're going to do with the survey data
you give them :/

You might look through previous projects and project proposals written up
on the Research Index ,
and also in the Research newsletter
.

On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 7:21 AM Juliana Bastos Marques 
wrote:

> Hi all. Does anybody know any studies about mental health of participants
> in collective, horizontal collaboration environments?
>
> Thank you,
> Juliana
>
> --
> www.domusaurea.org
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>


-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) 
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are published!

[Jonathan Morgan]

whoops, last sentence of paragraph #5 should read "You *CAN* have higher
walls and easier quality control, but you can't have higher walls and
higher newcomer retention (or diversity)."

On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 9:45 AM Jonathan Morgan 
wrote:

> Kerry,
>
> I like this a lot except for one small, but critical, distinction. I want
> to get your take on it (yours specifically, in this case, because of your
> background and the thought you've put into this issue).
>
> I think that explicitly forbidding newcomers from performing certain kinds
> of actions, or editing certain pages, is a mistake. This was a mistake with
> ACTRIAL, and it would be a mistake with any other newcomer quality-control
> or harm-mitigation strategies--however well intentioned.
>
> It's a mistake for two reasons, First, it runs counter to the spirit of
> Wikipedia. Wikipedia has become more 'closed' over time in both formal and
> informal ways. This is a common patterns for social movements as well as
> organizations--it's not unexpected, and to a certain extent it may be
> necessary, but in *Wikipedia's *case it directly violates the fundamental
> values and goals of the project. That means creeping bureaucracy and
> "in-group" mentalities are inherently more damaging to Wikipedia than it
> would be to, say, Microsoft, or Facebook, or even Stackexchange.
>
> Second, being explicitly denied the opportunity to make particular kinds
> of contributions (as opposed to being nudged towards other options,
> explained to why something is a bad idea, or shown the likely outcomes of
> certain actions) is an even bigger motivation-killer, long term, than
> having bad experiences due to stumbling onto the "freeway" (nice
> metaphor!).
>
> Especially considering that both the current EnWiki community and the
> current content embed major biases and gaps, we can't afford to make it
> harder for the new people who have the expertise, the perspective, and the
> passion to correct those biases and fill those gaps from participating as
> full-fledged members of the community. Full stop. You can't have higher
> walls and easier quality control, but you can't have higher walls and
> higher newcomer retention (or diversity).
>
> Wikipedia (esp. EnWiki) has basically two options at this point, with
> maybe some narrow-ish middle ways between them:
> 1. Continue to make it harder and harder for new people to contribute,
> through political and technological means, thus preserving the current
> content to a great degree, but diminishing the relevance of the project as
> a whole as it becomes increasingly incomplete, out of date, and limited in
> scope.
>
> 2. Try to make it easy as possible for newcomers (with their new
> knowledge, sometimes different values, and yes, sometimes *mixed
> motivations*) to contribute, and try to make the project feel as exciting
> for them as it was for people who joined in 2004; accept that taking this
> track will lead to a degree of vandalism and COI (although probably not
> different in scale than current or historical levels), and invest heavily
> in algorithmic quality control, streamlined onboarding and socialization,
> diversity-friendly policy change, expansive and public offline initiatives,
> and all the other "suite" of methods intended to scale the ability of the
> current community to handle additional growth and diversity in content and
> contributors.
>
> #1 involves no great risk to the "community" besides gradual obsolescence;
> Wikipedia will go the way of many other social institutions that failed to
> adapt. But it will do so slowly, and continue to provide value in the
> process. It just won't ever be the world's encyclopedia.
>
> #2 involves risk because the intention behind it is that the community
> will look different, the content will look different, the mechanisms for
> contributing will look different, and the policies will look different in
> 10 years vs. today. But it is the only shot at continuing to meaningfully
> pursue the original mission at this point. I personally would love to see
> this happen--as a contributor, as a scholar, as a world citizen who
> believes in Wikipedia--but it involves risk because it means that people
> who have power will need to give it up. That's never easy.
>
> (Opinions my own, not those of WMF)
> - J
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 1:54 AM Kerry Raymond 
> wrote:
>
>> Stripping out a long email trail ...
>>
>> I am not advocating lowering the BLP bar as there are genuine legal needs
>> to prevent libel.
>>
>> What I am advocating is not letting new users do their first edits in
>> “high risk” articles. When I do training, I pick exercises for the 

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are published!

[Jonathan Morgan]

Kerry,

I like this a lot except for one small, but critical, distinction. I want
to get your take on it (yours specifically, in this case, because of your
background and the thought you've put into this issue).

I think that explicitly forbidding newcomers from performing certain kinds
of actions, or editing certain pages, is a mistake. This was a mistake with
ACTRIAL, and it would be a mistake with any other newcomer quality-control
or harm-mitigation strategies--however well intentioned.

It's a mistake for two reasons, First, it runs counter to the spirit of
Wikipedia. Wikipedia has become more 'closed' over time in both formal and
informal ways. This is a common patterns for social movements as well as
organizations--it's not unexpected, and to a certain extent it may be
necessary, but in *Wikipedia's *case it directly violates the fundamental
values and goals of the project. That means creeping bureaucracy and
"in-group" mentalities are inherently more damaging to Wikipedia than it
would be to, say, Microsoft, or Facebook, or even Stackexchange.

Second, being explicitly denied the opportunity to make particular kinds of
contributions (as opposed to being nudged towards other options, explained
to why something is a bad idea, or shown the likely outcomes of certain
actions) is an even bigger motivation-killer, long term, than having bad
experiences due to stumbling onto the "freeway" (nice metaphor!).

Especially considering that both the current EnWiki community and the
current content embed major biases and gaps, we can't afford to make it
harder for the new people who have the expertise, the perspective, and the
passion to correct those biases and fill those gaps from participating as
full-fledged members of the community. Full stop. You can't have higher
walls and easier quality control, but you can't have higher walls and
higher newcomer retention (or diversity).

Wikipedia (esp. EnWiki) has basically two options at this point, with maybe
some narrow-ish middle ways between them:
1. Continue to make it harder and harder for new people to contribute,
through political and technological means, thus preserving the current
content to a great degree, but diminishing the relevance of the project as
a whole as it becomes increasingly incomplete, out of date, and limited in
scope.

2. Try to make it easy as possible for newcomers (with their new knowledge,
sometimes different values, and yes, sometimes *mixed motivations*) to
contribute, and try to make the project feel as exciting for them as it was
for people who joined in 2004; accept that taking this track will lead to a
degree of vandalism and COI (although probably not different in scale than
current or historical levels), and invest heavily in algorithmic quality
control, streamlined onboarding and socialization, diversity-friendly
policy change, expansive and public offline initiatives, and all the other
"suite" of methods intended to scale the ability of the current community
to handle additional growth and diversity in content and contributors.

#1 involves no great risk to the "community" besides gradual obsolescence;
Wikipedia will go the way of many other social institutions that failed to
adapt. But it will do so slowly, and continue to provide value in the
process. It just won't ever be the world's encyclopedia.

#2 involves risk because the intention behind it is that the community will
look different, the content will look different, the mechanisms for
contributing will look different, and the policies will look different in
10 years vs. today. But it is the only shot at continuing to meaningfully
pursue the original mission at this point. I personally would love to see
this happen--as a contributor, as a scholar, as a world citizen who
believes in Wikipedia--but it involves risk because it means that people
who have power will need to give it up. That's never easy.

(Opinions my own, not those of WMF)
- J


On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 1:54 AM Kerry Raymond 
wrote:

> Stripping out a long email trail ...
>
> I am not advocating lowering the BLP bar as there are genuine legal needs
> to prevent libel.
>
> What I am advocating is not letting new users do their first edits in
> “high risk” articles. When I do training, I pick exercises for the group
> which deliberately take place in quiet backwaters of Wikipedia, eg add
> schools to local suburb articles. Such articles have low readership and low
> levels of watchers and no BLP considerations, i.e. low risk articles. If
> the newbie first edit is a bit of a mess, probably no reader will see it
> before it is fixed by a subsequent edit. They will be able to get help from
> me to fix it before anyone is harmed by it and before anyone reverts them.
>
> The “organic” newbie can dive into any article. It would be a very
> interesting research question to look at reverts and see if we can develop
> risk models that predict which articles are at higher risks of reverted
> edits (e.g. quality rating, 

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are published!

[Jonathan Morgan]

A recently published report which is relevant to this discussion:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gender_equity_report_2018/Barriers_to_equity

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 7:57 PM Kerry Raymond 
wrote:

> I agree there are some systemic factors that may prevent us achieving
> 50-50 male-female participation (or in these enlightened non-binary times
> 49-49-2). Studies continue to show that wives still spend more hours at
> domestic tasks than their husbands, even when both are in full-time
> employment, and clearly less free time is less time for Wikipedia. But
> still men now do more housework than they once did. (My husband would argue
> that I have never let housework take priority over Wikipedia, but maybe I'm
> not typical!). Similarly, we have not yet seen pay rates for women reach
> parity with men but they are moving closer. A gender balance of 90-10 that
> might once have been the norm in many occupations is now unusual. Wikipedia
> is a child of the 21st century; one might expect it to more closely reflect
> the societal norms of this century not the 19th century.
>
> Women use wikis like Confluence in workplaces without apparent difficulty.
> But I note that modern for-profit wikis have visual editing and tools that
> import/export from Word as normal modes of contribution.
>
> I agree entirely with you about outreach and off-wiki activities. I said
> when there was the big push to "solve the women problem" by such events
> that it wouldn't make the difference because the problem is on-wiki. The
> majority of people who attend my training class and come to the events I
> support are women. It's not women can't do it. It's not that they don't
> want to do. As you say, it's just that it's such an unpleasant environment
> to do it in and that's what women don't like. For that matter, a lot of men
> don't like it either.
>
> What shall we write on Wikipedia's tombstone? "Wikipedia: an encyclopedia
> written by the most unpleasant people"?
>
> Can one create cultural change? Yes, I've seen it done in organisations.
> You tell people what the new rules are, you illustrate with examples of
> acceptable and unacceptable behaviours. You offer a voluntary redundancy
> program for those who don't wish to stay and you make clear it that those
> who wish to stay and continue to engage in the unacceptable behaviours will
> be "managed out" through performance reviews. You run surveys that measure
> your culture throughout the whole process. Interestingly the cultural
> change almost always involved being less critical, more collaborative, less
> micromanaged, more goal-oriented, more self-starting, many of which I would
> say apply here (except perhaps for being more self-starting, I don't think
> that's our problem).
>
> En.WP can change but WMF will have to take a stand and state what the new
> culture is going to be. En.WP will not change of its own accord; we have
> years of evidence to demonstrate that.
>
> Kerry
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wiki-research-l [mailto:wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org]
> On Behalf Of Jonathan Morgan
> Sent: Friday, 21 September 2018 10:44 AM
> To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities <
> wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey
> are published!
>
> (Re: Jonathan's 'Chilling Effect' theory and Kerry's call for experiments
> to increase gender diversity)
>
> Kerry: In a magic world, where I could experiment with anything I wanted
> to without having to get permission from communities, I would experiment
> with enforceable codes of conduct that covered a wider range of harassing
> and hostile behavior, coupled with robust & confidential incident reporting
> and review tools. But that's not really an 'experiment', that's a whole new
> social/software system.
>
> I actually think we're beyond 'experiments' when it comes to increasing
> gender diversity. There are too many systemic factors working against
> increasing non-male participation. In order to do that you would need to
> increase newcomer retention dramatically, and we can barely move the needle
> there on EnWiki, for both social and technical reasons. But one
> non-technical intervention might be carefully revising and re-scope
> policies like WP:NOTSOCIAL that are often used to arbitrarily and
> aggressively shut down modes of communication, self-expression, and
> collaboration that don't fit so-and-so's idea of what it means to be
> Wikipedian.
>
> Initiatives that start off wiki, like women-oriented edit-a-thons and
> outreach campaigns, are vitally important and could certainly be supported
> better in terms of maintaining a sense of communi

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are published!

[Jonathan Morgan]

(Re: Jonathan's 'Chilling Effect' theory and Kerry's call for experiments
to increase gender diversity)

Kerry: In a magic world, where I could experiment with anything I wanted to
without having to get permission from communities, I would experiment with
enforceable codes of conduct that covered a wider range of harassing and
hostile behavior, coupled with robust & confidential incident reporting and
review tools. But that's not really an 'experiment', that's a whole new
social/software system.

I actually think we're beyond 'experiments' when it comes to increasing
gender diversity. There are too many systemic factors working against
increasing non-male participation. In order to do that you would need to
increase newcomer retention dramatically, and we can barely move the needle
there on EnWiki, for both social and technical reasons. But one
non-technical intervention might be carefully revising and re-scope
policies like WP:NOTSOCIAL that are often used to arbitrarily and
aggressively shut down modes of communication, self-expression, and
collaboration that don't fit so-and-so's idea of what it means to be
Wikipedian.

Initiatives that start off wiki, like women-oriented edit-a-thons and
outreach campaigns, are vitally important and could certainly be supported
better in terms of maintaining a sense of community among participants once
the event is over and they find they're now stuck alone in hostile
wiki-territory. But I'm not sure what the best strategy is there, and these
kind of initiatives are not large-scale enough to make a large overall
impact on active editor numbers on their own, though they set important
precedents, create infrastructure, change the conversation, and do lead to
new editors.

The Community Health
 team
just hired a new researcher who has lots of experience in the online
harassment space. I don't feel comfortable announcing their name yet, since
they hasn't officially started, but I'll make sure they subscribe to this
list, and will point out this thread.

Jonathan: This study  is the
one I cite. There's a more recent--paywalled!--follow up
 (expansion?)
that I haven't read yet, but which may provide new insights. And this short
but powerful enthnographic study
. And this lab study
 on
the gendered perceptions of feedback and anonymity. And the--ancient, by
now--former contributors survey
,
which IIRC shows that conflict fatigue is a significant reason people
leave. And of course there's a mountain of credible evidence at this point
that antisocial behaviors drive away newcomers, irrespective of gender.

Thanks for raising these questions,

- J

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 3:21 AM, Jonathan Cardy  wrote:

> Thanks Pine,
>
> In case I didn’t make it clear, I am very much of the camp that IP editing
> is our lifeline, the way we recruit new members. If someone isn’t happy
> with Citizendium et al as tests of that proposition then feel free to
> propose tests. I am open to being proved wrong if someone doesn’t mind
> wasting their time checking what seems obvious to me.
>
> Just please if you do so make sure you test for the babies that I fear
> would be thrown out with the bathwater, i.e the goodfaith newbies.
>
> I am not short of promising lines of enquiry, and more productive uses of
> my time. My choice for my time available for such things is which promising
> lines of enquiry to follow, and banning IPs isn’t one if them.
>
> One where we might have more agreement is over the default four warnings
> and a block for vandalism. I think it bonkers that we block edit warrers
> for a first offence but usually don’t block vandals till a fifth offence. I
> know that the four warnings and a block approach dates back to some of the
> earliest years on Wiki, but I am willing to bet that it wasn’t very
> scientifically arrived at, and that a study of the various behaviours that
> we treat this way would probably conclude that we could reduce the number
> of warnings for vandals, whilst we might want a longer dialogue with non
> neutral editors, copy pasters and those who add unsourced material.
> Afterall, many of our editors started without getting issues like
> neutrality, and whilst the few former vandals who we have don’t generally
> have a grudge that their early vandalism lead to a block, the same isn't
> always true of others.
>
> The other issue that could really use some research is on the chilling
> effect theory. Here the community is divided, some honestly believe that
> the high quality work of certain individuals justifies a certain level of
> snark, even to the point of harassment. Others, including myself, believe
> 

Re: [Wiki-research-l] where did I read about predicting user conflicts?

[Jonathan Morgan]

Kerry,

Here are a couple recent pieces on predicting conversation outcomes, that
I'm aware of.

1. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1805.05345.pdf
2. http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/I17-1103

There's another recent one about predicting whether RFCs will be closed,
that Chris Schilling worked on with some folks from MIT. That's been
accepted to a conference, but not officially published yet--so I don't
*think* Mako would have mentioned it at Wikimania?

Hope that helps,
J

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 10:44 AM, Tilman Bayer  wrote:

> Maybe it was this research ? https://blog.wikimedia.org/201
> 8/06/13/conversations-gone-awry/
>
> Or perhaps you were recalling the talk page research summarized in this
> year's "State of Wikimedia Research"
>  State_of_Wikimedia_Research_2017-2018>
> Wikimania presentation? https://mako.cc/talks/201807-
> wikimania_research.pdf
>
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 2:27 AM, Kerry Raymond 
> wrote:
>
> > Some time in the last few months (possibly at Wikimania) someone pointed
> me
> > at some research about predicting the outcome of Wikipedia consensus
> > building from the language they were using in Talk. I think it was either
> > research in progress or recently completed.
> >
> >
> >
> > As I recall, the main "take home" message was that discussions where
> "you"
> > started to be used tended to end up in conflict and that discussions that
> > avoided "you" were more likely to resolve amicably.
> >
> >
> >
> > If this rings any bells for you, can you please point me at it please.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> >
> > Kerry
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Tilman Bayer
> Senior Analyst
> Wikimedia Foundation
> IRC (Freenode): HaeB
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>



-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) 
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

[Wiki-research-l] Wikimedia is hiring a Senior Design Researcher

[Jonathan Morgan]

Hi everyone,

There's a new full-time Senior-level research position available at WMF
that you should know about. Details below and here.


Please forward this on to relevant contacts and channels!

I am able to answer some questions about this position—but for best
results, please direct your questions to Margeigh Novotny, Director of Product
Design Strategy

.

Thanks,
Jonathan

Senior Design Researcher at Wikimedia Foundation (View all jobs)

San Francisco, CA or Remote



*Location: *San Francisco, CA or Remote

*Duration: *Permanent

*Hours: *Full time

*Summary*

The Wikimedia Foundation’s Product Design Strategy Group is seeking a
senior design researcher to whose primary focus will be to work with
the Anti-Harassment
Tools (AHT) Team to support the development of tools

and policies

aimed at reducing online harassment and other disruptive behavior on
Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects.  Formed in 2017, the AHT team’s mission
is to address a wide range of behavior: from content vandalism, stalking,
name-calling, trolling, doxxing, and discrimination, to anything that
targets individuals for unfair and harmful attention. As the world’s
largest encyclopedia, and a cornerstone of the open content movement,
Wikimedia seeks to build and model an online community that aligns with its
mission of inclusion and diversity.

The team is building tools that will: help detect harassment and stalking;
make it easier for people to report harassment; help wiki administrators to
evaluate reports; and block unwanted harassers from our projects.  Working
closely with product managers, developers, community advocates and many
passionate volunteers, the Sr. Researcher will design qualitative and
quantitative research that results in actionable insights that can drive
the development of these new tools.  Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia
projects are complex places, both socially and technically — this position
requires enthusiasm for learning about new communities, processes, and
cultural norms.

The WMF Product Design Strategy Group provides strategic research and
experimentation to help inform and inspire future product and platform
decisions.

*Responsibilities:*

   - Design, drive and support qualitative and quantitative research agenda
   to better understand the needs of Wikipedia contributors who have
   experienced or witnessed harassment, and administrators who are working to
   protect the editing community
   - Perform analysis of complex, dynamic online communities to identify
   opportunities and problematic areas of existing tools and workflows
   - Help design a set of interdependent software features, in
   collaboration with the editors who will use those features
   - Consult and collaborate with other researchers to ensure quality and
   usability of output

*Requirements: *

   - Expertise in multiple qualitative research methodologies, e.g.
   surveys, textual analysis, and ethnographic interviewing and observation,
   including qualitative analysis methods.
   - A strong sense of mission and energy for this initiative
   - Experience with quantitative research methodologies, e.g. statistical
   analysis, data visualization, data manipulation
   - Outstanding written and verbal communication skills
   - Aptitude for defining and measuring project success
   - Strong time-management skills
   - Self sufficiency and ability to resolve what blocks your work within a
   cross-functional team environment
   - Comfortable working on short deadlines and the ability to pivot quickly
   - Experience leading research projects from start to finish (solo and in
   collaboration with others)
   - Collaborative nature (willingness to make collaboration across time
   zones via remote functionality work, as well as in person collaboration)
   - Academic training in Behavioral or Social Sciences (e.g. sociology,
   social psychology, anthropology), Information Science, or Human-Computer
   Interaction background
   - 5+ years of professional experience in a research role
   - Masters Degree or PhD in a related field
   - Experience working collaboratively with design teams to translate
   insights into actionable recommendations

*Pluses: *

   - A nuanced understanding of group dynamics and online cultural practices
   - Experience working in interdisciplinary teams with data scientists and
   designers
   - A history of social activism, volunteering, and/or open source
   contribution
   - Experience contributing to Wikimedia projects
   - A strong portfolio of public presentations of research work (e.g.
   conference presentations, white 

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Revert data by article importance/quality/readership/watchership/BLP

[Jonathan Morgan]

Got it. Thanks for the clarification Kerry. I share your perception, but
don't have data either.

- Jonathan

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 3:01 PM, Kerry Raymond <kerry.raym...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I said "where I am suggesting that we don’t allow new users to edit
> articles of higher importance, higher quality, higher readership, or higher
> page-watcher-ship, or about living people because I strongly suspect  that
> this is where new users are at much higher risk of reverting"
>
> I entirely agree with you that editing Donald Trump would not be a good
> new user experience. I run all my edit training sessions and new-user
> 1Lib1Ref edit-a-thons on "low risk" articles as I perceive them. I am just
> curious if my perception of revert risk for new users matches statistical
> reality.
>
> Kerry
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wiki-research-l [mailto:wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org]
> On Behalf Of Jonathan Morgan
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 March 2018 4:30 AM
> To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities <
> wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Revert data by article
> importance/quality/readership/watchership/BLP
>
> Kerry,
>
> Did you really mean "not allow" here? IMO we (WMF, researchers,
> Wikipedians) shouldn't be in the business of creating Yet Another Barrier
> to newcomer contribution.
>
> *Suggesting* that people avoid making their first edit to the article on
> Donald Trump, etc.--sure, that's a good "teachable moment" and probably
> helps shield newcomers from unnecessary confusion and hostility.
>
> I also believe that we could make progress by *recommending *articles for
> newcomers to edit based on some combination of 1) quality improvement
> needed, 2) low likelihood that good faith edits will be immediately
> reverted 3) topic is of general interest OR topic is likely to be of
> interest to newcomer based on their stated preferences or their editing
> history.
>
> The data necessary to run a study like the one you're looking for is all
> public and so I think a study like this could be done. But to my knowledge
> no one has done it yet.
>
> - Jonathan
>
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 4:42 AM, Andy Mabbett <a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > On 20 March 2018 at 11:40, Andy Mabbett <a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I can understand your reasoning, but consider who this would impact
> > > things like [...]
> >
> > *how* this would impact...
> >
> > Apologies.
> >
> > --
> > Andy Mabbett
> > @pigsonthewing
> > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
> >
> > ___
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Jonathan T. Morgan
> Senior Design Researcher
> Wikimedia Foundation
> User:Jmorgan (WMF) <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
>



-- 
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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Revert data by article importance/quality/readership/watchership/BLP

[Jonathan Morgan]

Kerry,

Did you really mean "not allow" here? IMO we (WMF, researchers,
Wikipedians) shouldn't be in the business of creating Yet Another Barrier
to newcomer contribution.

*Suggesting* that people avoid making their first edit to the article on
Donald Trump, etc.--sure, that's a good "teachable moment" and probably
helps shield newcomers from unnecessary confusion and hostility.

I also believe that we could make progress by *recommending *articles for
newcomers to edit based on some combination of 1) quality improvement
needed, 2) low likelihood that good faith edits will be immediately
reverted 3) topic is of general interest OR topic is likely to be of
interest to newcomer based on their stated preferences or their editing
history.

The data necessary to run a study like the one you're looking for is all
public and so I think a study like this could be done. But to my knowledge
no one has done it yet.

- Jonathan

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 4:42 AM, Andy Mabbett 
wrote:

> On 20 March 2018 at 11:40, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
>
> > I can understand your reasoning, but consider who this would impact
> > things like [...]
>
> *how* this would impact...
>
> Apologies.
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>



-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) 
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Gaps

[Jonathan Morgan]

Thanks, Heather! This looks super interesting and relevant. I look forward
to reading it :)

Jonathan

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 3:28 PM, Heather Ford  wrote:

> Dear Amir,
>
> I did send this via Twitter, but wanted to send here too in case anyone
> else is interested. Our paper summarises some of the research on
> notifications. A pre-print is available here:
>
> https://makebuildplay.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/wp_primary_school_paper_
> acceptedv.pdf
>
>
> Happy to chat more and would very much like to chat to others doing
> research on knowledge gaps on Wikipedia.
>
> Best,
> Heather.
>
> Dr Heather Ford
> Senior Lecturer, School of Arts & Media ,
> University of New South Wales
> w: hblog.org / EthnographyMatters.net  /
> t:
> @hfordsa 
>
>
> On 9 February 2018 at 20:53, Amir E. Aharoni  >
> wrote:
>
> > Heather,
> >
> > Thanks for starting this thread.
> >
> > Where can I read your research that comes to the conclusion that
> automated
> > mechanisms are insufficient for solving the gaps problem?
> >
> > Sorry if this was mentioned somewhere already; I sometimes get lost on
> long
> > emails, and it's possible that I missed it :)
> >
> >
> > בתאריך 9 בפבר׳ 2018 05:04,‏ "Heather Ford"  כתב:
> >
> > Having a look at the new WMF research site, I noticed that it seems that
> > notification and recommendations mechanisms are the key strategy being
> > focused on re. the filling of Wikipedia's content gaps. Having just
> > finished a research project on just this problem and coming to the
> opposite
> > conclusion i.e. that automated mechanisms were insufficient for solving
> the
> > gaps problem, I was curious to find out more.
> >
> > This latest research that I was involved in with colleagues was based on
> an
> > action research project aiming to fill gaps in topics relating to South
> > Africa. The team tried a range of different strategies discussed in the
> > literature for filling Wikipedia's gaps without any wild success.
> Automated
> > mechanisms that featured missing and incomplete articles catalysed very
> few
> > edits.
> >
> > When looking for related research, it seemed that others had come to a
> > similar conclusion i.e. that automated notification/recommendations alone
> > didn't lead to improvements in particular target areas. That makes me
> think
> > that a) I just haven't come across the right research or b) that there
> are
> > different types of gaps and that those different types require different
> > solutions i.e. the difference between filling gaps across language
> > versions, gaps created by incomplete articles about topics for which
> there
> > are few online/reliable sources is different from the lack of articles
> > about topics for which there are many online/reliable sources, gaps in
> > articles about particular topics, relating to particular geographic areas
> > etc.
> >
> > Does anyone have any insight here? - either on research that would help
> > practitioners decide how to go about a project of filling gaps in a
> > particular subject area or about whether the key focus of research at the
> > WMF is on filling gaps via automated means such as recommendation and
> > notification mechanisms?
> >
> > Many thanks!
> >
> > Best,
> > Heather.
> > ___
> > 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
>



-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) 
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Analytics] A new landing page for the Wikimedia Research team

[Jonathan Morgan]

Quick heads up that there's now a Phab tag[1] for the landing page. Please
feel free to use this tag to document issues and feature requests.

Thanks,
Jonathan

1. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/project/profile/3243/

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 8:46 AM, Jonathan Morgan <jmor...@wikimedia.org>
wrote:

> Aaron: I'll ask Baha about the issue tracking... *issue* today. The code
> is hosted on Gerrit now, with a one-way mirror on this GitHub repo[1],
> which is not ideal from an openness/collaboration POV. For me, enabling
> easy issue tracking and pull requests is the most pressing issue. In the
> meantime, you can submit tasks through Phab. Add them to the Research
> board[2] and/or as subtasks of our Landing Page creation epic[3]. Not
> ideal, but at least you can capture things this way.
>
> Federico: Translation via translatewiki would be very cool. We haven't
> prioritized this because, well, none of our on-wiki research team pages
> were ever translated, and this microsite is intended to supplement our
> on-wiki content, not replace it. But it sounds like a potential 'roadmap'
> kinda deal and I'll make sure to track it.
>
> Iolanda: this is the landing page for the Wikimedia Foundation Research
> team[4], not for the international community of researchers who study
> Wiki[*]edia. It's also not the landing page for all researchers and
> research activities within the Wikimedia Foundation--just those of team
> members (and Aaron, whose Scoring Platform team is a kind of spin
> off/sibling of the research team).
>
> Thanks everyone for the feedback so far. Keep it coming,
>
> Jonathan
>
> 1. https://github.com/wikimedia/research-landing-page
> 2. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/research/
> 3. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T107389
> 4. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research
>
> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 8:09 AM, Aaron Halfaker <aaron.halfa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hey folks, I see you're using github[1], but you've disabled the issue
>> tracker there.  Where should I submit bug reports and feature requests?
>> Maybe you could add a link next to "source code" at the bottom of the
>> page.
>>
>> 1. https://github.com/wikimedia/research-landing-page
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 10:02 AM, Aaron Halfaker <aaron.halfa...@gmail.com
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Depends on which standard.  This is not a wiki page so it won't be
>> > translatable using the on-wiki translate tools.  However, it's quite
>> > possible that we could use something like translatewiki.net.  I'm not
>> > sure if that is on the road map.  Dario, what do you think?
>> >
>> > On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <
>> nemow...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Will it be translatable with standard tools?
>> >>
>> >> Federico
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ___
>> >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> >> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> ___
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Jonathan T. Morgan
> Senior Design Researcher
> Wikimedia Foundation
> User:Jmorgan (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)>
>
>


-- 
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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Analytics] A new landing page for the Wikimedia Research team

[Jonathan Morgan]

Aaron: I'll ask Baha about the issue tracking... *issue* today. The code is
hosted on Gerrit now, with a one-way mirror on this GitHub repo[1], which
is not ideal from an openness/collaboration POV. For me, enabling easy
issue tracking and pull requests is the most pressing issue. In the
meantime, you can submit tasks through Phab. Add them to the Research
board[2] and/or as subtasks of our Landing Page creation epic[3]. Not
ideal, but at least you can capture things this way.

Federico: Translation via translatewiki would be very cool. We haven't
prioritized this because, well, none of our on-wiki research team pages
were ever translated, and this microsite is intended to supplement our
on-wiki content, not replace it. But it sounds like a potential 'roadmap'
kinda deal and I'll make sure to track it.

Iolanda: this is the landing page for the Wikimedia Foundation Research
team[4], not for the international community of researchers who study
Wiki[*]edia. It's also not the landing page for all researchers and
research activities within the Wikimedia Foundation--just those of team
members (and Aaron, whose Scoring Platform team is a kind of spin
off/sibling of the research team).

Thanks everyone for the feedback so far. Keep it coming,

Jonathan

1. https://github.com/wikimedia/research-landing-page
2. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/research/
3. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T107389
4. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 8:09 AM, Aaron Halfaker 
wrote:

> Hey folks, I see you're using github[1], but you've disabled the issue
> tracker there.  Where should I submit bug reports and feature requests?
> Maybe you could add a link next to "source code" at the bottom of the page.
>
> 1. https://github.com/wikimedia/research-landing-page
>
> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 10:02 AM, Aaron Halfaker 
> wrote:
>
> > Depends on which standard.  This is not a wiki page so it won't be
> > translatable using the on-wiki translate tools.  However, it's quite
> > possible that we could use something like translatewiki.net.  I'm not
> > sure if that is on the road map.  Dario, what do you think?
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo)  >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Will it be translatable with standard tools?
> >>
> >> Federico
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >>
> >
> >
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>



-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) 
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Wikidata] Fwd: Call for Papers: EuropeanaTech 2018 Conference

[Jonathan Morgan]

Interesting/relevant research venue...


-- Forwarded message --
From: Sandra Fauconnier 
Date: Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 10:07 AM
Subject: [Wikidata] Fwd: Call for Papers: EuropeanaTech 2018 Conference
To: "Discussion list for the Wikidata project." <
wikid...@lists.wikimedia.org>


Hi all!

Here's a call for proposals for the EuropeanaTech conference, which will
take place in Rotterdam, May 15-16, 2018.
https://pro.europeana.eu/event/europeanatech-conference-2018

Some of the suggested topics are very Wikidata- and Wikimedia-related.

Best! Sandra (User:Spinster)

-- Forwarded message --
From: Gregory Markus 
Date: Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 9:17 AM
Subject: Call for Papers: EuropeanaTech 2018 Conference
To: europeana-t...@list.ecompass.nl


Dear EuropeanaTech community

EuropeanaTech is about the practical application of research concepts and
the latest technologies to digital libraries. For this edition of
EuropeanaTech, we concentrate on t*he three D’s: Data, Discovery and
Delivery*. Intertwined are the concepts of participation, linked and big
data; language and tools. Across all the subjects we are looking for the
inclusion of rigorous evaluations of the outcomes.

The conference will be a mix of invited speakers and successful
presentations from this call. We are not expecting an academic paper but a
lively presentation of work that you have been doing under the subjects
below. We are as interested in the glorious failures as we are in the
gorgeous successes.
Submission Guidelines

Please submit your proposal* by February 7*.  It should contain a title, an
abstract of 250 words, some key words and a two sentence evaluation of its
practical benefits or learning.  The Programme Committee will evaluate all
the submitted proposals and will notify you before the end of February if
your proposal has been selected for presentation.  *We have room for up to
15 presentations* to be given in the conference as a result of this call.
The conference fee and your travelling costs will be covered if your
presentation is chosen.

Submissions are to be made via EasyChair: https://easychair.org/conferen
ces/?conf=eurtech18
List of Topics

*DATA*

   1.

   *User generated content and metadata:*  from crowdsourcing of
   descriptive data and transcription projects to Wikidata and structured data
   on the Commons to how to combine institutional and user generated metadata.
   We are looking for what has worked, or what hasn’t and can be done better.
   2.

   *Enhancing the results of digitisation: *various applications connect
   the act of digitisation with required data processes for the use of the
   data.   What are the latest techniques, have they been applied at scale, do
   they work in the in the more challenging audio-visual areas?  We are
   interested in everything from 3D capture, OCR,  sound/video labelling,
   named entity recognition and feature detection, to machine or deep learning
   to help classify and categorise the digitised data.
   3.

   *Decentralisation vs Centralisation:* We know that aggregation works as
   a process to bring together disparate data, standardised, normalise it and
   make it available to other parties, but we also know that this is labour
   intensive, very hierarchical, and does not distribute knowledge and
   expertise. On the other hand more decentralised ways of working have yet to
   be really proven in practice. Presentations that give the latest thinking
   on how we can best enable access to cultural heritage data and reduce
   friction costs are welcome, particularly with evaluation on the relative
   strengths and weaknesses.
   4.

   *Multilingualism*: Google has more or less cracked full text translation
   of mainstream languages, but we are still struggling with niche languages
   and metadata. Presentations that evaluate the current thinking or give
   insights into the latest work in the area would fit well in this section of
   the creation and use of multilingual data in Cultural Heritage.

*DISCOVERY*

   1.

   *User Interaction: *Search is still the dominant means of gaining access
   to the wealth of cultural heritage data now online, but does it represent
   that wealth? Search is ungenerous: it withholds information, and demands a
   query, what are the alternatives? Papers on generous interfaces and
   frictionless design are sought to shed new light on how Cultural Heritage
   can show itself more deeply. Evaluating the benefits and weaknesses to the
   user in the process.
   2.

   *Artificial Intelligence: *For this subject topics ranging from machine
   learning to neural network-based approaches to Cultural Heritage are
   welcome. This includes applications of AI from image feature recognition to
   natural language processing, and from building search interfaces on
   features/colour similarity between images and discovery to the use of human
   metadata and 

[Wiki-research-l] New policy about performing research on English Wikipedia

[Jonathan Morgan]

Hi there wiki-research folks,

This is just a heads-up that English Wikipedia has adopted a new policy[1]
about research on that project. The policy codifies some new requirements
for community notification and disclosure that potentially apply to all
research projects (regardless of the affiliation of the researcher).

You can read more about the policy on WP:NOT[1], but I've included the
major points below for your convenience:

   - any research project that involves directly changing article content,
   surveying a large number of editors, or asking editors sensitive questions
   about their real-life identities needs to be discussed on Wikipedia's
   Village Pump[2] before it is begun[3]
   - researchers should disclose who they are on their user pages,
   including their institutional affiliation, sources of research funding (if
   applicable), and the intentions behind their research[4]

Many aspects of this policy boil down to either common sense, existing
ethical standards for human subjects research, or both. However, this
policy also leaves certain definitions and thresholds undefined. What is a
"large number" of surveyed users? What is a "sensitive question"?
There are no concrete answer to these questions yet, and that's probably a
good thing. The best way to keep this policy from becoming overly
restrictive[5] is for researchers to follow its guidance in good faith, and
ask questions when they're uncertain.

Projects that are deemed to be in violation of these guidelines may lose
editing privileges. If the violations are deemed particularly frequent or
severe, the EnWiki community may decide to make even more rules, which
could have a chilling effect on wikiresearch in general. Nobody wants
that.

If you have general questions about this policy or its application, the
best place to ask is the WP:NOT talkpage.[6]

If you have questions related to a specific planned research project, the
best thing to do is to err on the side of caution and open up a discussion
on the Village Pump before you begin.

You are also welcome to post your project plan to this list, where we, your
friendly peers, will hopefully offer constructive feedback and links to
relevant resources.

Wikimedia Foundation research staff are not in charge of these guidelines,
but are happy to offer advice "from the trenches" so to speak if asked. We
are on this list too.

As always, if you are currently researching Wikipedia, or plan to do so,
please create a Research Project page on MetaWiki[7] (example[8], tips[9]),
keep it up to date, and link to it from your userpage[10]. That way
interested parties can follow your research and ask questions, and you
won't need to constantly re-explain what you're doing every time someone
asks.

Happy researching,

Jonathan



   1.
   
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_laboratory
   2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)
   3.
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#cite_note-7
   4.
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#cite_note-8
   5. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Instruction_creep
   6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not
   7. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Projects
   8.
   
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Supporting_Commons_contribution_by_GLAM_institutions
   9.
   https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Project_documentation_best_practices
   10. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:LZia_(WMF)




-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) 
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Announcement - NICO Hosts International Conference on Computational Social Science

[Jonathan Morgan]

The call for abstracts link was broken for me. This one should work:
http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/news-events/conference/ic2s2/2018/call-for-abstracts.aspx

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:35 PM, NICO Northwestern <
niconorthwestern...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear colleagues,
>
>
>
> We are very excited to announce that Northwestern University and
> Northwestern Institute on Complex Systems (NICO
> ) is once again hosting the annual
> International
> Conference on Computational Social Science from July 12-15, 2018
>  conference/ic2s2/2018.aspx>.
> Our Call for Abstracts for presentations has just opened, and our chairs
> and committee members thought members of your group might be interested.
>
>
>
> Below is a link with further information; feel free to forward to others if
> interested as well.
>
>
> https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/uzzi/IC2S2/IC2S
> 22018-CallForAbstracts.pdf
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> Yasmeen Khan
>
> Business Coordinator, NICO​​
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>



-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) 
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: JDIQ Call for Papers: Special issue on Combating Digital Misinformation and Disinformation

[Jonathan Morgan]

Interesting and timely CFP... -J


-- Forwarded message --
From: Tiziana Catarci, ACM JDIQ Editor-in-Chief 
Date: Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 8:00 AM
Subject: JDIQ Call for Papers: Special issue on Combating Digital
Misinformation and Disinformation
To: jmor...@wikimedia.org



ACM Journal of Data
and Information Quality

*Special issue on Combating Digital Misinformation and Disinformation*

Guest Editors
Naeemul Hassan, University of Mississippi
Chengkai Li, University of Texas at Arlington
Jun Yang, Duke University
Cong Yu, Google Research

--

*Context*
Spread of misinformation and disinformation is one of the most serious
challenges facing the news industry, and a threat to democratic societies
worldwide. The problem has reached an unprecedented level via social media,
where contents can be created and disseminated to a large audience with
little to zero cost, and revenues are driven by click-through rates.
Researchers from multiple disciplines have proposed various strategies,
built automated and semi-automated systems, and recommended policy changes
across the media ecosystem. Recently, researchers have also explored how
artificial intelligence techniques, particularly machine learning and
natural language processing, can be leveraged to combat falsehoods online.

In this special issue of JDIQ, we aspire to provide an overview of
innovative research primarily at the intersection of information
credibility, machine learning, and data science, from theory to practice,
with a focus on combating misinformation and disinformation.

*Topics*
Specific topics within the scope of the call include, but are not limited
to, the following:

   - Automated question-answering for fact-checking
   - Crowdsourced fact-checking
   - Data collection, labeling and extraction for fact-checking
   - Detection of fake-news spreading social bots
   - Knowledge bases for fact-checking
   - Models and methods for tracking the propagation and derivation of
   online data
   - Multi-modal deception detection
   - Natural language processing approaches to fact checking
   - Role of AI agents in fake news propagation
   - Role of metadata and provenance management in assessing veracity of
   online information
   - Semantic parsing and verification of fake news
   - Sustainable fact-checking framework
   - Techniques to detect and limit misinformation and disinformation in
   social media
   - Truth discovery from structured and unstructured data


*Expected contributions:*
We welcome two types of contributions:

   - Research manuscripts reporting mature results (up to 25 pages)
   - Experience papers that report on lessons learned from addressing
   specific issues within the scope of the call. These papers should be of
   interest to the broad data quality community. (12+ pages plus an optional
   appendix)


*Important dates and timeline:*
Initial submission: April 1, 2018
First review: July 1, 2018
Revised manuscripts: September 1, 2018
Second review: November 1, 2018
Camera-ready manuscripts: January 10, 2019
Publication: April 1, 2019

For further information and author instructions please visit jdiq.acm.org
,
or contact Paolo Missier  or Naeemul Hassan
.

--
UNSUBSCRIBE
 to
stop receiving emails about publishing in ACM journals.

Association for Computing Machinery, Two Penn Plaza, Suite 701, New York,
NY 10121-0701, USA
Copyright 2017, ACM, Inc.



-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) 
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Editor participation rates in surveys

[Jonathan Morgan]

Hi Juliana,

Can you give a little more info about what you're looking for, and a little
context about why your asking?

I don't know of any research that has specifically asked whether there is a
difference in response rate per target group. Anecdotally (I've run a lot
of editor surveys), I can say that in my experience:

   - very new editors often don't respond to surveys at a high rate,
   probably because they're less committed to/invested in Wikipedia and/or
   they have already lost interest (or stopped participating for other
   reasons) by the time they get the survey
   - how you deliver the survey matters a lot: for example, direct email
   vs. talkpage message vs. newsletter/mailing list message vs. invitation at
   a live f2f event
   - the topic and goal of your survey matters a lot: if it's something
   that people care about, they're more likely to respond. If people feel that
   it's important or personally useful to tell you what they know or what they
   think, they're more likely to respond. If you're asking for very personal
   information, or information that is not clearly relevant to your stated
   goals, they're often less likely to respond.
   - who you are and why you're asking matters a lot: do the editors trust
   you? do they have preconceived notions (correct or not) about who you are,
   what the data will be used for, how it will be stored and published, how
   privacy and anonymity will be ensured (if applicable)... these all matter a
   whole lot.
   - in general, smaller-scale surveys targeted at a very specific group
   and which are clearly relevant to the expertise and goals of that group,
   and follow scientific best practices for open and ethical research, seem to
   work pretty well (with all the above caveats)

Hope that helps,
Jonathan

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Juliana Bastos Marques <
domusau...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all! I am looking for any discussions/data about participation rates in
> research surveys directed towards editors. I'd like to see if there's a
> consistent rate, or not, in responses per target group. Can anybody help me
> with this?
>
> Thank you,
> Juliana
>
>
>
> --
> www.domusaurea.org
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>



-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) 
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] sharing my project "Wikipedia Cultural Diversity Observatory" / grant application

[Jonathan Morgan]

Thanks for sharing this, Marc. I've endorsed the project overall (as a
volunteer, not staff), but also described some concerns/considerations with
some aspects of the proposal on the talk page.

Cheers,
Jonathan

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 6:33 AM, Marc Miquel  wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> My name is Marc Miquel and I am a researcher from Barcelona (Universitat
> Pompeu Fabra).
>
> While I was doing my PhD I studied whether an identity-based motivation
> could be important for editor participation and I analyzed content
> representing the editors' cultural context in 40 Wikipedia language
> editions.
>
> Few months later, I propose creating the *Wikipedia Cultural Diversity
> Observatory* in order to raise awareness on Wikipedia’s current state of
> cultural diversity, providing datasets, visualizations and statistics, and
> pointing out solutions to improve intercultural coverage.
>
> I am presenting this project to a grant and I expect that the site becomes
> a useful tool to help communities create more multicultural encyclopaedias
> and bridge the content culture gap that exists across language editions.
>
> Here is the link of the project proposal:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Wikipedia_
> Cultural_Diversity_Observatory_(WCDO)
>
> If you like the project, I'd ask you to endorse it. In any case, I will
> appreciate any feedback, comments,... Of course, you are invited to become
> participants, as there will be the need for users in the testing part.
>
> Thanks in advance for your time!
> Best regards,
>
> Marc Miquel
> Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona
> ᐧ
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>



-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) 
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: ACM JOCCH Special Issue Call for Papers on Evaluation of Digital Cultural Resources

[Jonathan Morgan]

Looks to be an interesting venue for people doing Wikipedia research with a
focus on cultural heritage (esp. GLAM/WikiLoves research?). Manuscripts are
due November 30, and it looks like they accept several types of submissions
.


-- Forwarded message --
From: Roberto Scopigno 
Date: Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 7:00 AM
Subject: ACM JOCCH Special Issue Call for Papers on Evaluation of Digital
Cultural Resources
To: jmor...@wikimedia.org



ACM Journal on Computing
and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH)
*Special Issue on Evaluation of Digital Cultural Resources*

Guest Editors
*Maria Economou*, University of Glasgow, UK
*Ian Ruthven*, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
*Areti Galani*, University of Newcastle, UK
*Milena Dobreva*, UCL Qatar
*Marco de Niet*, University of Leiden Library, The Netherlands
--

*Scope and Context*

Digital technologies are affecting all aspects of our lives, reshaping the
way we communicate, learn, and approach the world around us. In the case of
cultural institutions, digital applications are used in all key areas of
operation, from documenting, interpreting and exhibiting the collections to
communicating with diverse audience groups. The communication of
collections information in digital form, whether an online catalogue,
mobile application, museum interactive or social media exchange,
increasingly affects our cultural encounters and shapes our perception of
cultural organizations. Although cultural and higher education institutions
around the world are heavily investing on digitization and working to make
their collections available online, we still know very little about who
uses digital collections, how they interact with the associated data, and
what the impacts of these digital resources are.

The issue seeks to address this gap by bringing together interested parties
from a range of disciplines (e.g. digital heritage, museology, information
studies, digital humanities), practices and sectors to discuss the latest
developments on evaluating the use of cultural digital resources.

*Topics and Themes*

The issue will appeal to academics and practitioners working in a range of
disciplines: cultural heritage workers, arts professionals and scholars
interested in issues relating to digital resources and their impact upon
curation, education, engagement and outreach. We invite submissions of both
theoretical and practical approaches, efforts and trends in this emergent
field presenting innovative research. Topics and issues to be addressed
include but are not limited to:

   - Who uses digital cultural resources, where, and how these resources
   changed the consolidated working practice
   - Addressing diverse users' needs and expectations (i.e. from
   schoolchildren and families to students and researchers)
   - Assessing impact, use and value of digital cultural resources
   (methodologies, approaches and issues)
   - Ways of recording and assessing impact and value
   - Models of access to digital collections
   - Evaluating participatory models of work in digital cultural heritage
   (crowdsourcing, citizen science, co-creation, co-curation)
   - Moving from impact to value when assessing digital resources
   - Use of evaluation data in the curation of digital collections
   - Integrating evaluation when working with communities in digital
   cultural heritage
   - Adapting old and testing new innovative methods when evaluating
   quality, use and effectiveness of digital cultural resources
   - User studies
   - Metrics, webmetrics, infometrics and usage statistics
   - Evaluating emotional impact in digital heritage
   - Research on impact of social media on the usage of digital cultural
   resources

*Organizers*

The idea for this special issue arose from the activities of the Scottish
Network on Digital Cultural Resources Evaluation (ScotDigiCH) (
scotdigich.wordpress.com/
),
funded by The Royal Society of Edinburgh in 2015-2016, and particularly
from the discussions and papers presented at the International Symposium on
Evaluating Digital Cultural Resources (EDCR2016) which took place in
Glasgow in December 2016 (scotdigich.wordpress.com/events/symposium/
).
ScotDigiCH is coordinated by Information Studies at the University of
Glasgow in collaboration with The Hunterian at the University of Glasgow,
Glasgow Life Museums, the Moving Image Archive of the National Library of
Scotland and the Department of Computer and Information Science at the
University of Strathclyde.

This focused issue arises from the work of ScotDigiCH but invites
submissions from all researchers and cultural heritage practitioners
working in this area.

*Paper Submission*

Papers submitted to this special issue for possible 

Re: [Wiki-research-l] (qualitative?) Wiki Researchers at Wikimania?

[Jonathan Morgan]

I'd love to meet!

Leila and Aaron are honorary quals ;) Leila does a massive amount of survey
research, and Aaron is building a system to capture qualitative judgements
around ORES scores.

- J

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Aaron Halfaker 
wrote:

> I'll be there.  I'm running the mentors program at the Hackathon.  Let me
> know if you'd like to mentor some new researchers/proto-researchers :)
>
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Leila Zia  wrote:
>
> > If you decided to include quants with admiration for quals, ping me. ;)
> > I'll be there if the timing works.
> >
> > On Aug 3, 2017 11:09, "Dariusz Jemielniak"  wrote:
> >
> > > I'll be there and I'd love to meet :)
> > >
> > > dj
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Jan Dittrich <
> jan.dittr...@wikimedia.de>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello Wikiresearchers,
> > > >
> > > > I wondered who of us is at Wikimania (maybe there is a subpage
> > somewhere
> > > to
> > > > write one’s names in?)
> > > > I would be particularly interested in meeting with people who use
> > > > qualitative and ethnographic methods, but I don't mind a chat about
> > > > statistics either :-)
> > > >
> > > > Jan
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Jan Dittrich
> > > > UX Design/ User Research
> > > >
> > > > Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> > > > Phone: +49 (0)30 219 158 26-0
> > > > http://wikimedia.de
> > > >
> > > > Imagine a world, in which every single human being can freely share
> in
> > > the
> > > > sum of all knowledge. That‘s our commitment.
> > > >
> > > > Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.
> V.
> > > > Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
> > > unter
> > > > der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt
> für
> > > > Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
> > > > ___
> > > > 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 MINDS (Management in Networked and Digital Societies)
> > > Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
> > > http://NeRDS.kozminski.edu.pl  
> > >
> > > associate faculty w Berkman-Klein Center for Internet and Society,
> > > Harvard University
> > >
> > > Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An
> > > Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University
> > > Press) mojego autorstwa (Dorothy Lee Award 2015, Nagroda
> > > Naukowa Prezesa PAN 2016)  http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
> > > ___
> > > 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
>



-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) 
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Wikimedia-l] Research Showcase Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC

[Jonathan Morgan]

Andy: thanks for sharing this more widely. Looks like it sparked some
interesting conversation (and touched a few nerves!).

I just added a link to the manuscript
 to
the Showcase page. I hope that some of the discussion participants are
motivated to learn more about the study.

Thanks again,
Jonathan

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Andy Mabbett 
wrote:

> On 25 July 2017 at 19:38, Sarah R  wrote:
>
> > Freedom versus Standardization: Structured Data Generation in a Peer
> > Production CommunityBy *Andrew Hall*
>
> There's some discussion of the talk , on the UK OSM mailing list:
>
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2017-July/020401.html
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>



-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) 
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Looking for examples and suggestions for research project on my work at UNESCO

[Jonathan Morgan]

hi John,

When you say "research project", do you mean specifically "measure the
impact of a program or event", or do you mean something more general?

- J

On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 6:27 AM, john cummings 
wrote:

> Dear all
>
> I've been working as Wikimedian in Residence at UNESCO for the past two
> years working on a number of activities including:
>
> * Sharing UNESCO media content on Wikimedia projects
> * Sharing UNESCO open license text on English language Wikipedia
> * Promoting Wiki Loves competitions through UNESCO social media
> * Encouraging other UN agencies to adopt open licenses.
>
> More information is here:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_Nations
>
> I'm working with a researcher at UNESCO to understand the impact of what
> I've been doing and would like to some suggestions on where to start with a
> research project. The researcher has a background in statistics and is
> familiar with R but is not very knowledgeable about Wikimedia projects. I'm
> not familiar with much of the research done on Wikimedia projects other
> than metrics tools like BaGLAMa, GLAMorgan etc that I use for reporting. I
> guess what I'm looking for is a general overview and case studies on
> research projects done on Wikimedia projects and any specific examples done
> with the kind of work I'm doing.
>
> Many thanks
>
> John
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>



-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) 
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Report/Reflection on CHI 2017

[Jonathan Morgan]

This is wonderful, Andrew. Thank you for sharing it!

- Jonathan

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Andrew Hall  wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> I recently attended the 2017 Conference on Human Factors in Computing
> Systems (CHI) and put together a small report/reflection for Aaron Halfaker
> regarding some of the work that was presented there that I found
> interesting. If you’d like to check the report out, it can be found here:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hall1467/CHI_2017_Report <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hall1467/CHI_2017_Report>. CHI is a
> yearly human-computer interaction conference and is a common venue for
> studies on peer production communities such as Wikipedia.
>
> Feel free to leave questions or comments in the talk page! Have a great
> rest of the week.
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>



-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) 
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Escience_bbl] Call for Application - Mozilla Fellowship for Science

[Jonathan Morgan]

Call for research fellows from an ideologically-aligned organization. Looks
like a fascinating opportunity. Wish I could apply!

- J

-- Forwarded message --
From: Sarah and Micaela 
Date: Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:09 AM
Subject: [Escience_bbl] Call for Application - Mozilla Fellowship for
Science
To: "escience_...@u.washington.edu" 
Cc: Micaela and Sarah 


The Mozilla Science Lab launched its third annual Mozilla Fellowship for
Science  call for
applications! The fellowships are designed to promote a healthy internet
and support open access/source/science in research programs globally,
funding a few qualified individuals for 10 months of research in their
local institutions and scientific departments.

Read on for:

   -

   Details in our overview and FAQ page
   
   -

   Testimonials from our previous
   fellows
    on our blog
   
   -

   Application requirements
   
   on our CFP


We welcome all interested applicants to apply before our May 14th deadline:
https://science.mozilla.org/programs/fellowships.

Please share with your networks until then!

Best,

The Mozilla Science Lab Team

Community + Code, Mozilla Science Lab
Twitter @auremoser | GitHub @auremoser | Skype: auremoser1


-- 
Sarah A. Stone, PhD
Executive Director | eScience Institute
Campus Box 351570
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195

Follow us on Twitter  and Facebook
!

___
Escience_bbl mailing list
escience_...@u.washington.edu
http://mailman13.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/escience_bbl




-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) 
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

[Wiki-research-l] New guide for organizing Edit-a-thons at science conferences

[Jonathan Morgan]

I just ran across a new-ish (Feb 17) resource for people interested in
running editathons for scientists, developed by the Simons Foundation. You
can read the blog post[1] and download the guide in PDF form[2].

The guide provides a well-organized and comprehensive set of practical tips
for organizing, publicizing, and running editathons and is tuned to the
needs and interests of science SMEs.

Forwarding because I know there are many folks on this list who are
involved in this sort of work and/or could be.

Cheers,
Jonathan

1.
https://www.simonsfoundation.org/education-outreach/crowdsourcing-expertise/
2.
http://simonsfoundation.s3.amazonaws.com/share/sciencesandbox/CrowdsourcingExpertise_4.7.17.pdf

-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) 
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Article Lifecycle stats

[Jonathan Morgan]

Hi Peter,

Re: your question about getting historical ORES article quality
predictions, there's an open ticket on Phabricator
 to add these data to the public
replicas hosted on Labs (and therefore accessible via both SSH tunnel and
Quarry). Chime in on the discussion if you'd like to see these tables added!

Right now I believe the best way to access historical scores is to download
and parse the full dataset
.
But halfak or others may be aware of better methods.

Best,
Jonathan

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 7:26 AM, Peter Ekman  wrote:

>   I'll suggest Wikihistory, e.g.
> https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/wikihistory/wh.php?page_title=Tulip_mania
> which gives all the editors (ranked by number of edits), article
> size(?) and edits (per year, month, or even weeks).
> There's a bit more at
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tulip_mania;
> action=info#mw-pageinfo-watchers
> which includes info on page watchers, recent edits and a wikidata
> link.
> Page views at https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.
> wikipedia.org=all-access=user=
> latest-30=Tulip_mania
> only goes back a couple of years.  Before that is an inconsistent
> series (somewhere)
> All these are available from the history tab on the article page
> The only other thing that I'd want is the ORES scores (AI quality
> prediction for any individual version given the permid).
> Is this best place to get these at
> https://ores.wmflabs.org/v2/scores/enwiki/wp10/?revids=769824240  ?
> Is there an easy way to get a regular-interval time series of these?
> (I wouldn't expect a complete time series for 1,000s of versions!)
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Peete
>
>
>
>
>
>
> =
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 21:18:59 +1300
> From: "Stuart A. Yeates" 
> To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> 
> Subject: [Wiki-research-l] tool / framework for article lifecycle
> stats ?
> Message-ID:
> 

Re: [Wiki-research-l] surveying Wiki editors?

[Jonathan Morgan]

Hi Misha,

You might find the survey support desk
 to be a useful resource for
guidance on the do's and don't's of survey design and deployment.

Best,
Jonathan

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Misha Teplitskiy 
wrote:

> Dear Wikipedia researchers,
>
> I'm working on a paper that would benefit from knowing more about a given
> set of Wikipedia editors. Does anyone have experience surveying Wikipedia
> editors? Can someone point me to literature that has done this or discuss
> how one might go about doing it?
>
> From what I understand, it is possible to private-message registered Wiki
> editors from a registered account, but perhaps there are
> considerations/limitations I should keep in mind?
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> --
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Misha Teplitskiy
> Postdoctoral Fellow
> Innovation Science Lab
> Harvard University
> www.mishateplitskiy.com
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>


-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) 
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

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

[Jonathan Morgan]

Following up on Fabian's suggestions, I put together a lit review

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

- J

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

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



-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) 
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Chapters

[Jonathan Morgan]

Hi Aisha,

Interesting question. I haven't read anything that fits this description,
but you may want to take a look at the work of Iolanda Pensa[1] and Darius
Jemielniak[2], both of whom are researchers and also active in Movement
governance.

1. http://repository.supsi.ch/2138/
2. http://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=24010

On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Aisha Brady  wrote:

> Hi!
>
> Could anyone point me towards any papers relevant to Wikimedia chapters
> (how they function, the work they do, whether they have been successful or
> otherwise)?
>
> Thank you! :)
>
> Aisha
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>


-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) 
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Analytics] Question about data mining of the "Articles for Deletion" queues

[Jonathan Morgan]

+research-l because this is more of a research than an analytics question.

Hi Jane,

What do you mean by acronyms in deletion queues here? Are you talking about
policy links used to justify !votes in deletion discussions, or acronyms
used in deletion comments of AfD'd articles? Or something else entirely.

If #1, this paper

examines the use of a single policy (IAR) in AfD's over time.
If #2, I did a similar (quick and dirty) analysis with AfC recently, here:
https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/13341

Others may be aware of additional resources or analyses.

Best,
Jonathan

On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 7:10 AM, Jane Darnell  wrote:

> Hi all,
> Has anyone tried to find the frequency of acronyms used in AfD queues? Any
> information about the deletion queue in language is welcome, thanks.
>
> This came up during a discussion about "enyclopedia worthiness" and how to
> explain this concept to newbies.
> Jane
>
> ___
> Analytics mailing list
> analyt...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
>
>


-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) 
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Watchlists

[Jonathan Morgan]

Thanks, Pine!

Jan,

Pau Giner and I did some interviews with experienced editors about their
use of the Notifications feature between October and April (study 1
,
study 2
).


These interviews involved asking participants to interact with prototypes
of new Notifications functionality, but also included a series of questions
to probe more generally into how editors stay up-to-date on what's
happening on pages they are interested in.

Watchlist use was frequently discussed in the first part of the interview
(usually during the first 30 minutes or so).

Videos of some of those interview sessions are available:

Round 1
P1: https://youtu.be/z2XyYR2ctRQ
P2: https://youtu.be/tH_8NV6KyEQ
P3: https://youtu.be/LN0oXI0QHZw

Round 2
P1: https://youtu.be/ogPiWY_L1ik
P3: https://youtu.be/6btcqQSot5Q

Round 3:
P3: https://youtu.be/qqBEECIOxUg
P4: https://youtu.be/M2o4-pPf0_4

Happy to talk with you about this one on one as well, if you're interested.

Jonathan

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 5:34 AM, Pine W  wrote:

> Hi Jan,
>
> I believe that WMF Community Tech is working toward unifying watchlists
> across wikis. See
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Tech/Cross-wiki_watchlist
>
> I like the idea of time-limited watchlist items. You might propose that on
> Phabricator.
>
> Regarding research (as opposed to enginerring), I am unaware of current
> research projects but I suggest that you check the archives of the Research
> Newsletter.
>
> Dario or others may have more information.
>
> Pine
>
> On Jul 20, 2016 01:23, "Jan Dittrich"  wrote:
>
>> Hello Research list,
>>
>> Are you aware of research on the use of Watchlists on Wikipedia? There
>> are is the wish in the German Community to improve watchlists (one
>> suggestion is the ability to watch a page only for a certain amount of
>> time) but I currently lack the data to find out about the needs behind that
>> and other wishes.
>>
>> Jan
>>
>> --
>> Jan Dittrich
>> UX Design/ User Research
>>
>> Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
>> Phone: +49 (0)30 219 158 26-0
>> http://wikimedia.de
>>
>> Imagine a world, in which every single human being can freely share in
>> the sum of all knowledge. That‘s our commitment.
>>
>> Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
>> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
>> der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
>> Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
>>
>> ___
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>


-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) 
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

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

[Jonathan Morgan]

Hi Daniel,

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

Best,
Jonathan

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

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


Any pointers on what consistutes a pre-print? Perhaps Aaron Halfaker can
speak to this. I know he went through this dance with SAGE for the Rise and
Decline paper.
<https://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline/halfaker13rise-preprint.pdf>



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

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



> This is also covered in the FAQ, part D, along with limited funding
> options (cf.
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Open_access_policy/FAQ ).
>
> Cheers,
> d.
>
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 10:17 PM, Jonathan Morgan <jmor...@wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
> > Thanks, Sydney and Pine.
> >
> > This is timely, as Resources is currently re-vamping their instructions
> for
> > grant proposals (including research-focused grants). So it's a good time
> to
> > hammer out our policy and process here.
> >
> > Max: if you're willing to ping me off-list and relate some of the
> details of
> > your conversation, that will help me follow up on the particular issue
> > you're facing right now.
> >
> > I want this to be clear and easy for grantees going forward—if WMF is
> > funding research, we should be prepared to support the dissemination of
> that
> > research in a way that aligns with our values. In the future, I would
> like
> > to see grantees budget anticipated OA fees into their requests, and a
> > process for vetting this during the proposal review period.
> >
> > I know there has been some conversation between Research and Resources
> > around this issue in the past, but I don't know if there were decisions
> > made... more likely I'll need to start it back up again. We're all still
> > working out the kinks in the OA policy (even staff researchers are
> trying to
> > understand the ramifications for our work).
> >
> > I'll make sure to notify this list when I learn more.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Sydney Poore <sydney.po...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Max,
> >>
> >> This issue was discussed in the context of a paper about Wikipedia
> working
> >> with medical students in the classroom.
> >>
> >> See the talk page and endorsements for the discussion that led to the
> >> grant being approved. .
> >>
> >>
> >>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:PEG/bluerasberry/open_access_release_funding_for_paper_on_Wikipedia_in_classroom
> >>
> >> Sydney
> >>
> >> Sydney Poore
> >> User:FloNight
> >> Wiki Project Med Foundation
> >> WikiWomen's User Group
> >> Facebook https://www.facebook.com/sydney.e.poore
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Maximilian Klein <isa...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hello All,
> >>>
> >>> As you might know WMF has an Open Access Policy that requires all work
> >>> that they fund to be Open Access[1]. A strange consequence of this
> policy,
> >>

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Analytics] The WikiLove research project

[Jonathan Morgan]

I posted on the talkpage, offering to provide any information I have, and
asking about the need for research.

I'm not aware of any research that has explicitly tested that hypothesis.
And the Barnstar paper is... controversial... among wiki researchers.

I wonder if there's a concern that implementing WikiLove will cause some
sort of harm to the wiki?

Jonathan



On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Ryan Kaldari <rkald...@wikimedia.org>
wrote:

> I think what they really want is research about whether or not WikiLove
> has a positive impact on editing. I vaguely remember there being a paper a
> while back about the positive effect of barnstars, which may be of interest
> to the discussion, but I'm not aware of anything about the effects of
> WikiLove specifically.
>
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Jonathan Morgan <jmor...@wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
>
>> I was on that project. I just marked it as complete. I'll respond on Meta
>> as well.
>>
>> Do you have an idea of what kind of research they're looking for, Kaldari?
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Madhumitha Viswanathan <
>> mviswanat...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure if Analytics worked on this - adding the research list.
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Ryan Kaldari <rkald...@wikimedia.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The folks on Meta are considering whether or not to enable WikiLove and
>>>> they were hoping to find some data about it. There is a research project on
>>>> Meta about WikiLove (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:WikiLove),
>>>> but it seems to have been "in progress" since 2011. Could someone in
>>>> Analytics update that page to indicate that it is no longer in progress (or
>>>> finish whatever piece was still ongoing)?
>>>>
>>>> It would also be great if someone from Analytics could respond to the
>>>> questions and comments about the research data at
>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiLove#Support_for_another_discussion_about_enabling_Wikilove
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> ___
>>>> Analytics mailing list
>>>> analyt...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> --Madhu :)
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Analytics mailing list
>>> analyt...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jonathan T. Morgan
>> Senior Design Researcher
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>> User:Jmorgan (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Analytics mailing list
>> analyt...@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Analytics mailing list
> analyt...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
>
>


-- 
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] Fwd: [Wmfall] Fwd: [CE] Announcing Rapid Grants

[Jonathan Morgan]

Dear Wikimedia research community,

If you ever thought of organizing a small event, print some stickers, or
any other activity for the good of Wikimedia that costed money, now Rapid
Grants might be the simple solution you were looking for. Details below.


-- Forwarded message --
From: Asaf Bartov 
Date: Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:39 AM
Subject: [Wmfall] Fwd: [CE] Announcing Rapid Grants
To: "Staff (All)" 


(I actually think this is news worth sharing with the entire org.)

Folks, many of you will have a chance to direct volunteers to this
program.  Please consider taking a minute to get to know it.

Cheers,

A.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Alex Wang 
Date: Tue, May 17, 2016 at 9:01 PM
Subject: [CE] Announcing Rapid Grants
To: Community Engagement 


Hi Team!

Today the Community Resources team launched a new grants program -- Rapid
Grants!

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Rapid

Rapid Grants fund Wikimedia community members -- individuals, groups, or
organizations contributing to Wikimedia projects -- to organize projects
throughout the year for up to USD 2,000. Projects can include experiments
or standard needs that don't need broad review to get started. Applications
are reviewed weekly by Marti, Kacie, and myself.

Please help spread the word about the program!

Cheers,

Alex

-- 
Alexandra Wang
Program Officer
Community Resources
Wikimedia Foundation 
+1 415-839-6885
Skype: alexvwang



-- 
Asaf Bartov
Wikimedia Foundation 

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
https://donate.wikimedia.org

___
Wmfall mailing list
wmf...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wmfall




-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) 
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Sharing Wiki related research data

[Jonathan Morgan]

Many WMF researchers use https://figshare.com

Jonathan

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 7:38 AM, Robert Jäschke  wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Dear Moritz,
>
> On 21.04.2016 16:32, Physikerwelt wrote:
> > is there a central data repository, we want to use to share
> > research data. We put our data in the release of the GitHub
> > repository~[1], but that might not be optimal.
>
> What about http://zenodo.org/?
>
>
> Best regards,
> Robert
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v2
>
> iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJXGOXQAAoJEPZY2c/EvlKYkyIP+QExmDDMv03ojkFKxaAUPx4H
> VXNDuorMJCQgDjkHqOJuEA2qwx3aE4C/KDSwmC+5NM4OTxvcOJzVhEMYWxW+ynm9
> H0jqp0tyCxaS3R6mRZMZkqoTiHGfGJ4VwwtsG9TicW2mbohj97EAXAEMUg/xu2MZ
> Hj6RAo1crGpwsr2JBEjvUCpXC58hHfzd7Cpqcr6FB4CkdhkRYMoH+k2afieBvOOH
> UoT5//jeRn/h/4qrR/+gW0Bn7OtUNaTOnxx/iZX2yXb3z6MaMiXpCWarw6XplpM+
> COSWo382RAGh1sWp0Y4hca/GojS/x/E/LO2S+/tU53oTBccC2ATB6G/VbTmGkp/G
> A9WGQEVQs47idwV6M0MdAXKzBYBIoGRXWtl8k7Ca3y6RdNLqW9WdBJdFsK2omimG
> UIr7WIYuqqiYAX1iEVFfdmyqP4TEel9mYkEeeVVu3VIT6mX+VOuG/I3j86j9wA4H
> nY4c8+lAuEmn9khVCw/wKwCoT5Hi9wJFzTrUVCuNeEmd8Bnr83SkYGfh78SC5hW+
> xliOJ4TAc9bBPiZwfRuJuL/T4VEVsIqlHr/DfsaUro8hUL0vz6+uL18OydO67O08
> y342VfRvHA7776bJ0SAorI4adqfdVqC1WNvxka02HwiSN1ueuntHB11htZX9FXzC
> rXnSxQrGeCGfr3okxz1D
> =+fXN
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>



-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) 
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

[Wiki-research-l] Re: Lists of WikiProject articles and members (was: Community health statistics of Wikiprojects)

[Jonathan Morgan]

Hi Pine et al.,

Apologies for resurrecting this old thread, but my colleague Michael
Gilbert alerted me the other day that the API we set up a couple years ago
to collect and expose data about EnWiki WikiProject size and membership is
still up and running!*

Here's a couple samples:

   - pages claimed by WikiProject Cats:
   
https://alahele.ischool.uw.edu:8997/api/getProjectPages?project=WikiProject_Cats
   - members of WikiProject Cats:
   
https://alahele.ischool.uw.edu:8997/api/getProjectMembers?project=WikiProject_Cats

Some pretty detailed API documentation is available at Michael's GitHub repo
.

The data should be up-to-date and accessible to all, but let me know if it
looks stale and/or you can't access it--it may have been turned off, or
placed behind a wall to avoid server overload. I could probably convince
the maintainers to start it up or open it up again, if people are
interested.

A little more about the methodology we used to gather these data is
available in our 2013 OpenSym papers[1][2]

Hope that helps,
Jonathan

1.
http://pensivepuffin.com/dwmcphd/papers/Morgan.ProjectTalk.WikiSym2013.pdf
2.
http://pensivepuffin.com/dwmcphd/syllabi/info447_wi14/readings/08-Organizing/gilbert.et.al.HotArticles.WikiSym13.pdf


*a minor miracle for an academic prototype system

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 4:31 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> I believe that Operation Majestic Titan, a subproject within Wikiproject
> Military History, was operating at level 5 for awhile, largely thanks to
> the work of a small number of high-frequency contributors. Perhaps there
> were and are other projects active in this manner. Also, the Signpost, when
> it is going well -- it has ups and downs -- functions at level 5.
>
> J-Mo, is there a chance that I can set up a meeting with you in a month or
> two to discuss using Quarry to extract Wikiproject activity data on a
> semi-automated basis, if that's possible?
>
> Pine
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Kerry Raymond 
> wrote:
>
>> I would say that projects have a number of levels of activity:
>>
>> 1. dead
>> 2. someone is running around tagging articles with the Project banner
>> 3. there is genuine conversation (not just spam) on their Project talk
>> 4. there is some kind of  To-Do list that gets added to
>> 5. items actually come off the To-Do list because they've been done
>>
>> In my own editing,  I've never seen level 5. I know of a few at levels 3
>> and 4. There's a lot of level 2 and many are dead. I think you'd need a
>> project at least at level 3 to make it worthwhile to point a newbie at it,
>> but that's no guarantee that the conversation taking place will be
>> encouraging or welcoming.
>>
>> While I say I have never seen level 5, I am nonetheless aware of very
>> small groups of editors  that act like they have a mission but seem to
>> coordinate via User Talk than a project page. I must say I tend to operate
>> in that mode because I find the formalised projects attract too many people
>> who want to "lay down the rules to everyone else" rather than get on and do
>> the job.
>>
>> Kerry
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Wiki-research-l [mailto:wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org]
>> On Behalf Of Yaroslav M. Blanter
>> Sent: Saturday, 9 January 2016 2:34 AM
>> To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities <
>> wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Community health statistics of Wikiprojects
>>
>> On 2016-01-08 07:27, Samuel Klein wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:45 AM, Jonathan Cardy
>> >  wrote:
>> >
>> >> More broadly it would be good to know if wikiprojects are good for
>> >> editor recruitment and retention. My hypothesis is that if someone if
>> >> someone tries out editing Wikipedia and is steered to an active and
>> >> relevant wikiproject then they will be more likely to continue after
>> >> that first trial edit. I simply don't know whether introducing people
>> >> to inactive wikiprojects is worthwhile or what the cutoff is on
>> >> activity.
>> >
>> > That's probably right.  I think a nice cutoff on activity would be:
>> > ask all wikiprojects to come up with a banner to show to a subset of
>> > newbies, to indicate how many newbies or impressions they want (what
>> > they think they can handle), and to create a page/section with an
>> > intro and projects for newbies, if they don't already have one.   Any
>> > project that can manage this is welcome to get a few newbies to work
>> > with if they want, in my book.
>> >
>>
>> Actually, already knowing how many WikiProjects are alive (for example, I
>> watch several, and most of them are dead) would be already valuable.
>> May be even posting a question at the talk page of every WikiProject
>> whether the project is alive and able to set up smth would give the answer.
>> (Number of watchers certainly does not - many projects are 

[Wiki-research-l] ReplayEdits tool gets a shout-out in NYT

[Jonathan Morgan]

Yesterday, 2013 IEG grantee Jeph Paul started seeing 1000s of hits on his
(grant-funded, volunteer-maintained) ReplayEdits tool which visually
replays edit histories of Wikipedia articles.

Here's why:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/us/politics/wikipedia-donald-trump-2016-election.html?_r=0
  (the tool  is
linked from one of the last few paragraphs in the article)

The article itself is not exceptional. It's just cool to see one of our
locally grown research prototypes get good press.

Jonathan

-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) 
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Community health statistics of Wikiprojects

[Jonathan Morgan]

*Gabe/Nemo:* There is at least one piece of research that indicates it
does, under certain circumstances:
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/redmond/groups/connect/CSCW_10/docs/p107.pdf

At one point, I started building a WikiProject-matching workflow on the
Teahouse (with Nettrom, using SuggestBot). But we never finished or tested
it, and life moved on. I believe there have been other plans to do this at
other points, inside and outside WMF. To my knowledge, none of these plans
came to fruition, but I'd love to hear otherwise.

With the advent of ORES and the recommendation API, I bet a better workflow
for matching newbies and WikiProjects could be developed, if there is will
enough, and time.

*Pine/Jane:* There's no dashboard, but it's possible to gather these data
from the replica DBs (through Quarry, for instance). I may even have some
datasets lying around that contain some of the data you're asking for in
historical form (or at least pointers to research based on said data). I'll
look around and post what I find.

Jonathan

On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) 
wrote:

> Gabriel Mugar, 07/01/2016 18:35:
>
>> On the topic of Wikiprojects and retention, have there been any attempts
>> at directing newcomers to Wikiprojects?
>>
>
> Many attempts across years and languages. Sending people to places is
> easy, the issue is whether that does any good.
>
> Nemo
>
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>



-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) 
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Data on editathons held in each Wikipedia Language?

[Jonathan Morgan]

I don't personally know of any central repository for data on past
edit-a-thons.

There might be something out there. You could probably get some information
from pinging folks in CE who've worked on Project & Event Grants (Asaf
Bartov, Kacie Harold) or Program Evaluation (Amanda Bittaker, Edward
Galvez), or search through past grant reports... but I'm guessing the data
will be sparse and inconsistent, as it is still collected in a somewhat
ad-hoc fashion.

If WMF were to support the development and maintenance of standardized
infrastructure for edit-a-thon tracking--something like Harsh Kothari and
Jeph Paul's platform for the Indian Wikiwomen edit-a-thons (site
, code
)--this would be
easier. But AFAIK that hasn't happened. If someone takes up that cause I
will voice my support.

J

On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 7:34 PM, Maximilian Klein  wrote:

> Researchians,
>
> I have a been collecting data on the gendered biographies of different
> Wikipedia Languages from Wikidata dumps, with the question of trying to
> understand the gender gap in content. After reading about Propensity Score
> Matching[1] today, I see it would be possible to test a (close to) causal
> link between the genders of Wikipedia Biographies being added to a
> language, and Editathon activity. Yet we'd need the data for editathon
> activity. Is it compiled somewhere, or can you think of how it could be
> compiled?
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propensity_score_matching The idea in
> propensity score matching is to pretend a randomized experiment is being
> conducted, and to find a "control group" - a similar but untreated
> language, for each "treated group".
>
>
> Make a great day,
> Max Klein ‽ http://notconfusing.com/
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>


-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) 
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Reinforcing or incentivizing desired user behavior

[Jonathan Morgan]

It really is a good book :)

And I'm glad to hear that Wes is looking into next steps re: supporting
contributor growth. This kind of fell by the wayside within the
organization, and I think it's a great time to revisit it as an
organizational priority.

Thanks Pine!
Jonathan

On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I've started to read BSOC and I'm thoroughly appreciating it. I think that
> Wes is looking into notes from the former Growth Team and considering how
> to add contributor growth as a measure of succeess for current Product
> teams. I'd like to suggest that anyone in Product who is interested in the
> subject of contributor growth make at least a brief pass through this book.
>
> Thanks so much for the recommendation, J-mo.
>
> Pine
> On Oct 6, 2015 08:29, "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)>
>>
>>


-- 
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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Analytics] Does StackExchange have more monthly active users than Wikipedia?

[Jonathan Morgan]

+research

Fascinating. Thanks for sharing this, Nemo. And for setting those arrogant
Stackers straight ;)

For anyone else interested: Nemo was able to answer this question because
StackExchange has a Quarry -like public query
interface of their own. You should go play with it right now:
http://data.stackexchange.com/

Jonathan



On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) 
wrote:

> Some information at
> https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/269334/how-many-active-users-contributors-does-stack-overflow-stack-exchange-have/
>
> TL;DR: not really, and definitely not StackOverflow alone (~14k). But
> perhaps the whole StackExchange has more than the English Wikipedia alone.
>
> Nemo
>
> ___
> Analytics mailing list
> analyt...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
>



-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) 
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] New editor retention rates Visual Editor vs Wikitext

[Jonathan Morgan]

Aaron Halfaker ran a study of whether VE affected new editor retention in
May:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:VisualEditor%27s_effect_on_newly_registered_editors/May_2015_study

He didn't find any difference in short term survival or productivity
between VE and wikitext. That said, you should still teach newcomers with
VE--editor training sessions are a very different learning context than
trying to learn the ropes independently.

J

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 8:46 AM, john cummings 
wrote:

> Hi all
>
> Does anyone know of any information on editor retention rates based on
> whether the person used Visual Editor or Wikitext?
>
> I'm sure there are many ways you could explore this subject, my specific
> interest is when running editor training would it be better to teach people
> to use VE or wikitext?
>
> Many thanks
>
> John
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>


-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) 
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Reinforcing or incentivizing desired user behavior

[Jonathan Morgan]

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 5:56 PM, Nick Wilson (Quiddity) <
nwil...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> There was also an editfilter tracking the usage of the WikiLove extension,
> but it appears that was disabled in February 2015 due to performance issues
> with too many concurrent editfilters (IIUC). old results:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog=423
> However, there is still a database table tracking these Wikilove actions,
> just without an onwiki UI, so those details could perhaps be utilized, too.
>

Indeed they could! Top Wiklove recipients in the past year:
http://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/364



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


-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) 
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Reinforcing or incentivizing desired user behavior

[Jonathan Morgan]

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Looking for help finding tools to measure UNESCO project

[Jonathan Morgan]

Hi John,

I added one suggestion re: pages-in-a-category to your work page. Not sure
it was a particularly helpful one, though. Looking through your other
possible metrics, I see ways of gathering most of them via database and/or
API queries, but I don't know of many tools (other than the ones you've
already listed) that provide a GUI interface that allows you to get those
data without writing some queries or scripts yourself.

For queries related to Wikidata, you might try the new Wikidata Query
Service (web interface[1], manual[2]). And if anyone you're working with
knows any SQL or a scripting language like Python, you can gather most of
your participation metrics (pages edited, etc) via Quarry[3].

If you need a particular query run on a one-off basis, like "tell me how
many of the users in this list have created an article in this category",
post a request to this list and someone here may be able to run it for you.
If you want to learn how to run queries yourself, I can take an hour to get
you started. If you're able to take some extra time now to learn the ropes
of SQL, it will pay off in the future. We are blessed with a bunch of
awesome research tools, but as you've discovered there will always be
questions that you want to ask, that there isn't a tool for.

Hope that helps,
J

1. https://query.wikidata.org/
2. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikidata_query_service/User_Manual
3. http://quarry.wmflabs.org/

On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 3:43 AM, john cummings 
wrote:

> Hi All
>
> This is my first time posing on this list, I'm sorry if it is perhaps a
> little off topic. I'm currently Wikimedian in Residence at UNESCO and plan
> to run an online collaboration, a little bit like a short term Wikiproject
> with two main goals:
>
>
>- Help organise reuse of UNESCO content on Wikimedia projects (UNESCO
>has released content under an open license and will do more shortly).
>
>
>- Help improve content on Wikimedia of the subjects of UNESCO
>programmes e.g the World Heritage Sites.
>
>
> I have been planning ways that I can use tools to:
>
>
>- Organise work for contributors across all languages
>- Provide contributors feedback on their contributions (e.g page views
>for all contributions combined)
>- Measure success of the project.
>
>
> I've been doing this on wiki here
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:John_Cummings/Planning_UNESCO_metrics
>
> In short I'm finding it very hard to find the tools needed, I have found
> less than a third of what I think would be helpful but found others that
> may be tangentially useful which I've added in.
>
> Any help would be appreciate, please feel free to comment here, on the
> talk page or just add tools to the fields
>
> Thanks
>
> John
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>


-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) 
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] mobile pageviews

[Jonathan Morgan]

Hi Phoebe,

I just forwarded you this email from Mobile-l:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/mobile-l/2015-September/009773.html
(since I'm not sure the attached images were archived).

I think that might be what you want. If not, Tilman can probably point you
to other, related resources. Hope that helps!

J

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 10:42 AM, phoebe ayers 
wrote:

> Hi Research community (and especially Wikimedia analytics),
>
> Are there any up-to-date & relatively pretty visualizations of the
> current mobile pageview data --eg a comparison chart between desktop &
> mobile for global traffic for Wikipedia and/or all projects?
> (Stats.wikimedia.org just has desktop, afaik). I know Oliver & Toby
> presented such a thing in May 2014, but I don't know if there's a
> current version.
>
> Thanks in advance! I am trying to put a presentation together, looking
> for the latest numbers and ideally a graph I can use.
>
> Phoebe
>
> --
> * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
>  gmail.com *
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>



-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) 
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Verifying claims about ENWP project size

[Jonathan Morgan]

Hi Pine,

TL;DR: best to just say it's the largest encyclopedia ever. That should be
safe.

Claims like this are hard to make because terms that seem concrete from
afar tend to break down up close. For example: What do you mean by largest?

Largest in bytes? Words? Content "units" (articles vs. manuscripts in this
case, I guess)? Contributors?

What do you mean by "open text project"? Is archive.org an open text
project? It has 8.2 million books. How would you compare the two? Does 1
book = 1 article?

Having said all that, I'm curious how others have/would craft a claim like
this. My guess is that most of us who've written for an academic audience
have settled for some variant of "largest encyclopedia" (you've got to put
something in your Introduction paragraph, after all). What sayst?

J

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 4:45 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> Hi researchers,
>
> I could use a little help with understanding these dumps:
>
> https://dumps.wikimedia.org/enwikisource/latest/
>
> https://dumps.wikimedia.org/enwiki/20150901/
>
> I'm trying to verify the claim that ENWP is the world's largest open text
> project, and to do that I need to verify that ENWP is larger than English
> Wikisource. Which files should I be comparing?
>
> Are there any other projects that could make a claim to be a larger open
> text project than ENWP? Perhaps there's a library somewhere that has such a
> huge volume of out-of-copyright materials that the combined bytes of
> published text are larger than ENWP?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Pine
>
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>


-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) 
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] WMF initiative: Community Capacity Development

[Jonathan Morgan]

Hi Kerry,

Cool initiative. But then I expect nothing less from Ijon.

I probably don't have to time perform additional analysis, unless it's a
project I'm supporting on a volunteer basis. But one thing I do have time
for is leading more SQL tutorials[1] to teach more people how to ask and
answer questions with Wikimedia data. Always happy to set up a webinar.

I can also advise on sampling and other methodological considerations, and
*may* be able to help with gathering data in some cases. Ping me as needed.

Jonathan

1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Evaluation/Wikiresearch_webinars

On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 8:46 PM, Kerry Raymond kerry.raym...@gmail.com
wrote:

 Asaf Bartov has announced the WMF initiative: Community Capacity
 Development on the Wikimedia-l mailing list. The thread starts here:



 https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-August/078954.html



 The initiative can be found here:



 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Capacity_Development



 As experimentation is mentioned in parts of this, I have asked a question
 about the freedom to experiment, the engineering resources to support
 experiments, and (possibly involving some of you) the support of WMF for
 the qualitative and quantitative collection and analysis of data arising
 from such experiments.



 We speculate a lot on this list about what might make a difference but
 generally that’s all we can do as we have no way to test an idea. So I am
 genuinely curious to know if the resourcing is there to support
 experimentation.



 I also note that the on-wiki pages invite ideas. It occurred to me that
 there might be scope for re-using ideas that have been put forward on this
 list.



 Kerry





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




-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) 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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Has the recent increase in English wikipedia's core community gone beyond a statistical blip?

[Jonathan Morgan]

I don't think Jonathan was saying we should buy a full page adin the NYT
and declare editor retention solved. I share his cautious optimism. The
*rate* of the editor decline has decreased along several metrics, and we're
seeing an intriguing uptick in 100+ editor activity.

Back in 2011, when he and I (and several others on this list) were
participating in the Summer of Research, the month-over-month metrics were
decreasing at a rate that was kind of alarming. Some combination of factors
seems to have changed that pattern. Worth looking into.

J

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 Until we can prove it is good data we should treat it as good data
 is not how data works.

 Absent exactly that analysis it is almost certainly a bad idea for us
 to declare this to be good news; validate, /then/ celebrate.

 On 24 August 2015 at 12:26, WereSpielChequers
 werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
  100 edits a month does indeed have the disadvantage that all edits are
 not
  equal, there may be some people for whom that represents 100 hours
  contributed, others a single hour. So an individual month could be
 inflated
  by something as trivial as a vandalfighting bot going down for a couple
 of
  days and a bunch of oldtimers responding to a call on IRC by coming back
 and
  running huggle for an hour.
 
  But 7 months in a row where the total is higher than the same month the
  previous year looks to me like a pattern.
 
  Across the 3,000 or so editors on English wikipedia who contribute over a
  hundred edits per month there could be a hidden pattern of an increase in
  Huggle, stiki and AWB users more than offsetting a decline in manual
  editing, but unless anyone analyses that and reruns those stats on some
  metric such as unique calender hours in which someone saves an edit I
  think it best to treat this as an imperfect indicator of community
 health.
  I'm not suggesting that we are out of the woods - there are other
 indicators
  that are still looking bad, and I would love to see a better proxy for
  active editors. But this is good news.
 
 
 
  On 23 August 2015 at 19:31, Mark J. Nelson m...@anadrome.org wrote:
 
  WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com writes:
 
   Could you be more specific re In general I'm not sure the 100+ count
 is
   among the most reliable. What in particular do you think is
 unreliable
   about that metric?
 
  The main thing I have questions about with that metric is whether it's a
  good proxy for editing activity in general, or is dominated by
  fluctuations in bookkeeping contributions, i.e. people doing
  mass-moves of categories and that kind of thing (which makes it quite
  easy to get to 100 edits). This has long been a complaint about edit
  counts as a metric, which have never really been solidly validated.
 
  Looking through my own personal editing history, it looks like there's
  an anti-correlation between hitting the 100-edit threshold and making
  more substantial edits. In months when I work on article-writing I
  typically have only 20-30 edits, because each edit takes a lot of
  library research, so I can't make more than one or two a day. In months
  where I do more bookkeeping-type edits I can easily have 500 or 1000
  edits.
 
  But that's just for me; it's certainly possible that Wikipedia-wide,
  there's a good correlation between raw edit count and other kinds of
  desirable activity measures. But is there evidence of that?
 
 
  --
  Mark J. Nelson
  Anadrome Research
  http://www.kmjn.org
 
  ___
  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
 



 --
 Oliver Keyes
 Count Logula
 Wikimedia Foundation

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




-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) 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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Has the recent increase in English wikipedia's core community gone beyond a statistical blip?

[Jonathan Morgan]

For anyone who's still curious, here's[1] a set of all the editors who have
made over 100 article edits on Enwiki in the past 30 days: their total
article edits, total VE article edits, and the % of total made with VE.

And the winner is... User:Hessamnia![2]

1. http://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/4809
2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributionsoffset=2016010100limit=500tagfilter=contribs=usertarget=Hessamnianamespace=0

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Aaron Halfaker aaron.halfa...@gmail.com
wrote:

 I feel like I should expand on my skepticism of HHVM as a mechanism for
 the observed rise in active editors.

 The average edit takes 7 minutes[1,2].  HHVM reduces the time to *save*
 the edit by a couple seconds.  7 minutes - a couple seconds = ~7 minutes.
 So, HHVM doesn't really help you edit substantially faster.

 1. Geiger, R. S.,  Halfaker, A. (2013, February). Using edit sessions to
 measure participation in Wikipedia. In *Proceedings of the 2013
 conference on Computer supported cooperative work* (pp. 861-870). ACM.
 2. Halfaker, A., Keyes, O., Kluver, D., Thebault-Spieker, J., Nguyen, T.,
 Shores, K., ...  Warncke-Wang, M. (2015, May). User Session Identification
 Based on Strong Regularities in Inter-activity Time. In *Proceedings of
 the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web* (pp. 410-418).
 International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee.

 On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Aaron Halfaker ahalfa...@wikimedia.org
 wrote:

 So, I've been digging into this a bit.  Regretfully, I don't have my
 results written up in a nice, consumable format.  So, you'll need to deal
 with my worklogs.  See
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Active_editor_spike_2015/Work_log/2015-07-09

 TL;DR: It looks like there was a sudden burst in new registrations.  Work
 by Neil Quinn of the Editing Team suggests that these new registrations
 were largely the result of changes to the mobile app.  I didn't
 specifically look at 100+ monthly editors.  That seems like a fine
 extension of the study.  I'd be happy to support someone else to do that
 work.  I have some datasets that should make it relatively easy.

  If the data is correct, then [HHVM] is likely to be one of the main
 reasons for the change.

 Correlation is not causation.  There's no cause to arrive at this
 conclusion.  In my limited study of the effects of HHVM on newcomer
 engagement, I found no meaningful effect.  I think that, before we consider
 HHVM as a cause of this, we should at least propose a mechanism and look
 for evidence of that mechanism.

 See
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:HHVM_newcomer_engagement_experiment



 On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:49 AM, WereSpielChequers 
 werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:

 Most of those editors will have done 33 edits or less using V/E, and
 some, including me in 4th place, will have been having a look at V/E after
 the attention it has had recently at Wikimania, on the signpost and on
 mailing lists. I'm not sure that something that barely involves 10% of a
 group of editors could have had such a big effect.

 More likely and just at the right time, late 2014, Erik Zachte has
 reminded me that we had a major speed-up with php parser change.

 http://hhvm.com/blog/7205/wikipedia-on-hhvm


 If the data is correct, then that is likely to be one of the main
 reasons for the change.

 Regards

 Jonathan Cardy


 On 17 Aug 2015, at 19:11, Jonathan Morgan jmor...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 It looks like about 10% of highly active Enwiki editors have used VE in
 the past month (across all namespaces):
 http://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/4795

 On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 8:35 AM, WereSpielChequers 
 werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:

 On a very non-scientific measure of how few editors currently use V/E,
 I took some snapshots of the most recent 500 mainspace edits
 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChangeslimit=500days=30yesterday
 and was getting circa 1% tagged as visual editor, I've just run two sample
 this afternoon and the first had not a single edit tagged Visual editor and
 the other only four, so unless some of those experienced users using V/e
 have opted out of having their edits tagged V/E, I'm assuming gobs and
 gobs are either on other language wikis, heavily skewed to a time of day I
 haven't sampled or big in number but still too small a proportion to
 account for the increase in the number of editors doing 100 edits per
 month.

 On 17 August 2015 at 15:54, Jonathan Morgan jmor...@wikimedia.org
 wrote:

 There are gobs and gobs* of people using VE. Many of them are
 experienced editors.

 I'm also interested in looking at VE adoption over time (especially by
 veteran editors). I'll sniff around and let y'all know if I find anything.

 No idea what might be causing the boost in active editor numbers. But
 it's exciting to see :)

 Anyone else have data that bears on these questions?

 - J

 *non-scientific estimate drawn

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Visual Editor experiment might have a problem ...

[Jonathan Morgan]

No, I'm not aware of any ongoing CAPTCHA work. There was a long thread on
wikitech-l starting last December (Our CAPTCHA is very unfriendly) that
resulted in some Phabricator tasks and a wikipage. But I don't know of any
active development plans.

By the way: Aaron's in transition (of the timezone variety) right now, so
it may be a day or so before he's able to respond to this thread.

- J

On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 10:53 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:

 I thought that someone was already working on CAPTCHA improvents, but I
 can't remember who, and I haven't heard anything recently which makes me
 wonder if this was de-prioritized.

 J-mo, do you happen to know the status of the CAPTCHA work is, and who, if
 anyone, is active on that project?

 Pine
 On Aug 16, 2015 10:41 PM, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Hi Kerry,

 there is an experiment going on that randomly opts half if new users into
 V/E and leaves half using the classic editor. That should account for why
 one of your newbies had been opted in but not the other.

 Captcha when adding citations is a longstanding problem, we need Captcha
 on account creation to keep the spam bots at bay, but somehow it also
 applies to newbies adding external links as cites, so we have a software
 feature that doesn't effect the vandals but instead targets the best of our
 newbies. My suspicion is that if we could work out when that was introduced
 and then compare it to subsequent recruitment and retention we would find
 that this was one of the most damaging mistakes we've made.



 Regards

 Jonathan


 On 17 Aug 2015, at 04:56, Kerry Raymond kerry.raym...@gmail.com wrote:

 I ran my first training session using the Visual Editor this morning and
 hit what appeared to be a show-shopping bug. It appeared that the two new
 users (thankfully I had only 2) could not create a citation. They found
 themselves in an infinite loop of Save Page with Capcha when they tried to
 create a citation.



 By the end of the session, I managed to refine the bug to a combination
 of “new user”, “new article” (although created by me, not the new users),
 and citations involving a live URL, duly reported at
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback#New_users_unable_to_create_citation_with_a_live_external_link_in_it



 Ironically it first happened on their newly created User Pages where we
 were practising our new Wikipedia skills because tackling “real articles”.
 Then on the “real articles” I had created earlier for them to use (a
 training approach that has the benefit of not unleashing a horde of angry
 watchlisters when they make some silly mistake, which occurs if you let new
 people make their early edits on “popular articles”). (Spot the pattern,
 both were new articles!).



 Now if this had happened to a new user sitting at home, they would have
 been stymied. Because I was there to hold their hands in a training
 setting, I found a way around the problem by logging them in as me and we
 continued the training session on that basis (but not an option to the user
 sitting at home frustratingly typing in Capcha responses until they got
 frustrated and walked away).



 So, Aaron, it may be that your research on the impact of the VE was
 impacted by this bug. I imagine that users affected would have eventually
 aborted the edit as they were unable to save, unless by chance they were
 able to realise that the problem was caused by their citation and either
 removed the citation and just saved the text changes. It’s hard to say what
 the likelihood of a new user being affected is, as the problem seemed to
 relate to the age of the article (I am autopatrolled so I don’t think the
 new articles would have any “might be dodgy” status flags on them, but I am
 not familiar with how that side of things works).



 Also, is this experiment (or one similar) currently running? It’s just
 that when we went into the Preferences of the two new user accounts to
 enable the VE, one of them already had it enabled (yet I had seen both new
 user accounts created in front of me a couple of minutes earlier), so there
 was no possibility that this was anything other than a default setting for
 one of the two users. I thought enabling the VE was normally strictly
 opt-in?



 Kerry

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


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




-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) 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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Has the recent increase in English wikipedia's core community gone beyond a statistical blip?

[Jonathan Morgan]

It looks like about 10% of highly active Enwiki editors have used VE in the
past month (across all namespaces): http://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/4795

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 8:35 AM, WereSpielChequers 
werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:

 On a very non-scientific measure of how few editors currently use V/E, I
 took some snapshots of the most recent 500 mainspace edits
 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChangeslimit=500days=30yesterday
 and was getting circa 1% tagged as visual editor, I've just run two sample
 this afternoon and the first had not a single edit tagged Visual editor and
 the other only four, so unless some of those experienced users using V/e
 have opted out of having their edits tagged V/E, I'm assuming gobs and
 gobs are either on other language wikis, heavily skewed to a time of day I
 haven't sampled or big in number but still too small a proportion to
 account for the increase in the number of editors doing 100 edits per
 month.

 On 17 August 2015 at 15:54, Jonathan Morgan jmor...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 There are gobs and gobs* of people using VE. Many of them are experienced
 editors.

 I'm also interested in looking at VE adoption over time (especially by
 veteran editors). I'll sniff around and let y'all know if I find anything.

 No idea what might be causing the boost in active editor numbers. But
 it's exciting to see :)

 Anyone else have data that bears on these questions?

 - J

 *non-scientific estimate drawn from anecdata

 On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 9:53 AM, WereSpielChequers 
 werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:

 That's an interesting theory, but are there many people actually using
 V/E now?

 I've just gone back through recent changes looking for people using it,
 and apart from half a dozen newbies I've welcomed I'm really not seeing
 many V/E edits.

 Looking at the history of Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback
 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedbackoffset=limit=500action=history
 the last 500 edits go back three months. So apart from the Interior, you
 and I Kerry I'm not sure there is a huge number of people testing it, and I
 wasn't testing it in the first 6 months of this year. I did see some
 research where they were claiming that retention rates for V/E editors were
 now as good as for people using the classic editor, but I would be
 surprised if there were enough people using V/E to make a difference to
 these figures, especially as this is about the editors doing over 100 edits
 a month.

 I agree it would be interesting to track the take-up of the VE (fully
 or partially) by editor by year of original signup. But I think the long
 awaited boost from V?E editing is yet to come, if the regulars have started
 to increase that is likely to be due to something else.

 Jonathan

 On 15 August 2015 at 15:11, Kerry Raymond kerry.raym...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Is there any way of telling what proportion of these 8% appear to be
 using the Visual Editor either exclusively or partially? It might be
 interesting to track the take-up of the VE (fully or partially) by editor
 by year of original signup.



 Kerry



 *From:* wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:
 wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of *
 WereSpielChequers
 *Sent:* Saturday, 15 August 2015 11:12 PM
 *To:* Research into Wikimedia content and communities 
 wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org; The Wikimedia Foundation
 Research Committee mailing list rco...@lists.wikimedia.org
 *Subject:* [Wiki-research-l] Has the recent increase in English
 wikipedia's core community gone beyond a statistical blip?



 Hi,

 With 8% more editors contributing over 100 edits in June 2015 than in
 June 2014 https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm, we
 have now had six consecutive months where this particular metric of the
 core community is looking positive. One or two months could easily be a
 statistical blip, especially when you compare calender months that may have
 5 weekends in one year and four the next. But 6 months in a row does begin
 to look like a change in pattern.

 As far as caveats go I'm aware of several of the reasons why raw edit
 count is a suspect measure, but I'm not aware of anything that has come in
 in this year that would have artificially inflated edit counts and brought
 more of the under  100 editors into the 100 group.

 I know there was a recent speedup, which should increase subsequent
 edit rates, and one of the edit filters got disabled in June, but neither
 of those should be relevant to the Jan-May period.

 Would anyone on this list be aware of something that would have
 otherwise thrown that statistic?

 Otherwise I'm considering submitting something to the Signpost.

 Regards

 Jonathan



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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] identity disclosure hurt the reliability of review systems, but not necessarily efforts provision

[Jonathan Morgan]

Replicated it how?

Jonathan

On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 3:06 AM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:

 Has anyone replicated the experiment described in
 http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2015/e-Biz/GeneralPresentations/11/
 yet?


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




-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) 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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] identity disclosure hurt the reliability of review systems, but not necessarily efforts provision

[Jonathan Morgan]

Thanks, James. That sounds really interesting. I hope to read it.

NOTE TO EVERYONE: if you do have access to this closed-access paper, please
do NOT attach a PDF of it to an email you send to this mailing list. Turns
out it's a real pain to remove these files from our public list archive (I
found that out the hard way recently... :/).

/me shakes fist at the publishing-industrial complex

J

On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 3:37 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:

 Jonathan, I am so sorry
 http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2015/e-Biz/GeneralPresentations/11/
 is behind a paywall. It wasn't when I first found it, and that version is
 miles away from me at the moment. It describes a truly fascinating
 empirical simulation laboratory participation experiment, which shows that
 anonymous review is more accurate than review with identity disclosure,
 which is actually very easy to find literally centuries of replication, but
 it also found that the costs were more similar than conventional wisdom.

 I want everyone to see it because of what the specific
 experiment says about ways to detect bias at the lowest possible cost. I
 have a feeling that you will quickly think of ways to extend it to study
 projects' editing.

 Can someone who has access to that paper please share the method
 and results as fair use?


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




-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) 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] Fwd: [Wikitech-l] statistics about frequent section titles

[Jonathan Morgan]

Cross-posting this request to wiki-research-l. Anyone have data on
frequently used section titles in articles (any language), or know of
datasets/publications that examined this?

I'm not aware of any off the top of my head, Amir.

- Jonathan

-- Forwarded message --
From: Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il
Date: Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 3:29 AM
Subject: [Wikitech-l] statistics about frequent section titles
To: Wikimedia developers wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org


Hi,

Did anybody ever try to collect statistics about frequent section titles in
Wikimedia projects?

For Wikipedia, for example, titles such as Biography, Early life,
Bibliography, External links, References, History, etc., appear in
a lot of articles, and their counterparts appear in a lot of languages.

There are probably similar things in Wikivoyage, Wiktionary and possibly
other projects.

Did anybody ever try to collect statistics of the most frequent section
titles in each language and project?

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



-- 
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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Aaron Swartz Hypothesis on Wikipedia Authorship

[Jonathan Morgan]

On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:08 AM, Finn Årup Nielsen f...@imm.dtu.dk wrote:


 One interesting original study is this one: Creating, Destroying, and
 Restoring Value in Wikipedia from 2007 by
 Reid Priedhorsky and others.
 http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1316624.1316663


Yes, this is the best study of which I'm aware.

 - J


 best regards
 Finn Årup Nielsen




 On 06/23/2015 04:46 PM, Krzysztof Gajewski wrote:

 Hi all,

 I wonder if you know if somebody verified and / or further researched
 Aaron Swartz's thesis on structure of Wikipedia participation. You can
 find it here: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia

 Best,
 Krzysztof Gajewski

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



 --
 Finn Årup Nielsen
 http://people.compute.dtu.dk/faan/


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




-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) 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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Waray-Waray language Wikipedia

[Jonathan Morgan]

Please, please be civil and respectful on your behavior towards others on
the research list. I stopped reading Wikimedia-l because the tone turned me
off. I'd rather not have to stop reading this one.

On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 4:30 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com
wrote:

 Pine W, 01/05/2015 10:44:

 Hi researchers,


 One would think that you've learnt using WikiStats by now for trivial
 questions.
 * https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaWAR.htm#bots
 * https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/BotActivityMatrixCreates.htm

 Nemo


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




-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Community Research Lead
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)
jmor...@wikimedia.org
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Gender-specific page titles

[Jonathan Morgan]

Fabian,

I talked with Amanda Menking about this once, about a year ago. But no, I
don't believe there has been any academic work on the issue (another
consequence of our over-focus on enwiki).

Mako Hill and Aaron Shaw presented a paper on redirects at WikiSym last
year, and their enwiki corpus  methodology
http://communitydata.cc/wiki-redirects/ could help you or others extend
that line of research into gendered languages:
http://mako.cc/academic/hill_shaw-consider_the_redirect.pdf

Hope that helps!

- Jonathan

On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Flöck, Fabian fabian.flo...@gesis.org
wrote:

 Does anyone know about a study that looks at how often for example
 articles about a profession use the male instead of the female form as the
 name (female form doesn't exist or is just a redirect)?
 Could also be about any other article titles that can take male/female
 forms.

 It would probably not be a so much of an issue for English, but rather
 Spanish, German, Russian etc. Concrete example:
 https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor exists in German, but
 https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professorin is just a redirect.

 Cheers,
 Fabian



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




-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Community Research Lead
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)
jmor...@wikimedia.org
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

[Wiki-research-l] Anyone have access to this article?

[Jonathan Morgan]

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10./jcom.12123/abstract

*What Creates Interactivity in Online News Discussions? An Exploratory
Analysis of Discussion Factors in User Comments on News Items*

If you have access, and can send me a PDF offline, I would be very grateful
:)

Cheers,
Jonathan


-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Community Research Lead
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)
jmor...@wikimedia.org
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Anyone have access to this article?

[Jonathan Morgan]

Well, I was going to print out a bunch of copies and then sell them down on
the corner, but I guess now I'll just use it to inform the development of a
coding scheme for rating civility in Wikipedia talkpage comments.

- J

On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Stuart A. Yeates syea...@gmail.com wrote:

 I think you mean might have been permissible, if the original request
 had included the intended use.

 cheers
 stuart

 --
 ...let us be heard from red core to black sky


 On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Nicole Askin nask...@alumni.uwo.ca
 wrote:
  Stuart, this is permissible per Wiley's terms of use - Authorized Users
 may
  also transmit such material to a third-party colleague in hard copy or
  electronically for personal use or scholarly, educational, or scientific
  research or professional use.
  Nicole
 
  On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Stuart A. Yeates syea...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 
  I have to say that a WMF staffer using their official WMF account to
  ask community members to commit copyright infringement is not a good
  look.
 
  cheers
  stuart
  --
  ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
 
 
  On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Jonathan Morgan jmor...@wikimedia.org
 
  wrote:
   http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10./jcom.12123/abstract
  
   What Creates Interactivity in Online News Discussions? An Exploratory
   Analysis of Discussion Factors in User Comments on News Items
  
   If you have access, and can send me a PDF offline, I would be very
   grateful
   :)
  
   Cheers,
   Jonathan
  
  
   --
   Jonathan T. Morgan
   Community Research Lead
   Wikimedia Foundation
   User:Jmorgan (WMF)
   jmor...@wikimedia.org
  
  
   ___
   Wiki-research-l mailing list
   Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
   https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
  
 
  ___
  Wiki-research-l mailing list
  Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
 
 
 
  ___
  Wiki-research-l mailing list
  Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
 

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




-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Community Research Lead
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)
jmor...@wikimedia.org
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

[Wiki-research-l] YOUR INPUT NEEDED on Inspire Campaign research proposals!

[Jonathan Morgan]

Hi there wiki-researchers,

We have 6 days left in Phase 1 of the Wikimedia Inspire campaign
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Inspire and we've received
quite a few compelling research proposals. *When you have a moment this
week, please peruse these proposals and endorse/comment upon them. *I've
included a list of proposals below that seem to have gained some traction
and/or are reasonably detailed.


   - Expand Russian Wiktionary
   https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Expand_Russian_Wiktionary

   - Debates on facts given in Inspire Campaign mass message
   
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Debates_on_facts_given_in_Inspire_Campaign_mass_message

   - Survey potential female editors to determine the most popular topics
   of interest
   
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Survey_potential_female_editors_to_determine_most_popular_topics_of_interest

   - References from Gender/Queer studies
   
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/References_from_Gender/Queer_Studies

   - Examination of Gender Biographies
   
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Examination_of_gender_in_biographies
   - Research gender affinity for different subjects on Wikipedia
   
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Research_gender_affinity_for_different_subjects_on_Wikipedia

   - Survey women who don't contribute
   
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Survey_women_who_don%27t_contribute
   - WIGI: Wikipedia Gender Index Tools
   
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/WIGI:_Wikipedia_Gender_Index_Tools
   - A Consciousness Raising Repository
   
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/A_Consciousness_Raising_Repository


*Any input or insight you can provide on these proposals will be valuable*:
you can ask questions to make them think, suggest methods, theories, or
refinements to their research questions, or point the proposers to relevant
literature.

For example, the proposal Research gender affinity for different subjects
on Wikipedia
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Research_gender_affinity_for_different_subjects_on_Wikipedia
would probably benefit from a pointer to the WP:Clubhouse paper
http://files.grouplens.org/papers/wp-gender-wikisym2011.pdf, which
investigates that phenomenon within the scope of movie articles.

If you find a project particularly compelling, you can even join it as a
volunteer or (potential) grantee.

Like I said, any help is helpful! Although keep in mind that not every
proposer has the profound depth of research background that you do, My
Esteemed Colleagues. So please focus on providing constructive input and
assume good faith ;)

Full list of ideas that have been classified as research is here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Inspire/Ideas_by_theme#Research_ideas

You can view all ideas at the main campaign page:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Inspire

Thank you in advance for your support! I'll update this list in a month or
so to let y'all know which of these projects will be going forward with WMF
support.

Best,
Jonathan
-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Community Research Lead
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)
jmor...@wikimedia.org
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

[Wiki-research-l] New user retention on Zooniverse

[Jonathan Morgan]

This from Ars[1]. Sound familiar?





* - The top 10 percent of contributors end up supplying an average of
about 80 percent of the total effort put into these projects. - Most
people who show up to check out a project never return. The most compelling
projects still saw 60 percent of their users stop by for a single visit and
never come back; the worst case was an 83-percent rate. - The topic of
the project also seemed to have some effect [on participation rates]. The
biggest project... lets users sift through Kepler telescope data to search
for exoplanets; that attracted almost 30,000 users in its first 180 days.
The smallest, Galaxy Zoo Supernova (which is no longer active) only drew a
bit over 3,000.*
Original manuscript [2] (paywalled). Anyone have subscription access?

1.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/01/most-participants-in-citizen-science-projects-give-up-almost-immediately/
2. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/01/02/1408907112


-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Community Research Lead
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)
jmor...@wikimedia.org
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] commentary on Wikipedia's community behaviour (Aaron gets a quote)

[Jonathan Morgan]

I mostly agree. On one hand, it's always nice to see a detailed description
of how wiki-sausage gets made in a major venue. On the other, this
journalist clearly has a personal axe to grind, and used his bully pulpit
to grind it in public.

- J

On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com
wrote:

 1000th addition to the inconsequential rant genre.

 Nemo


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



-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Community Research Lead
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)
jmor...@wikimedia.org
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] StackExchange editor decline (serverfault)

[Jonathan Morgan]

*We don’t want our best contributors feeling like the most important
contribution they can make is to find stuff to get rid of - and more
importantly, we want to avoid deterring people from joining the community
and participating by being over-protective of what we want the site to look
like. Narrow interpretation of the scope with rigid enforcement hasn’t
slowed the volume of poor quality questions, but it has given Server Fault
a rather hostile and insular reputation and a tendency to give a poor first
impression.*

The parallels to English Wikipedia are startling. But the data shared here
don't say much to support the Facebook Ate My Online Community argument.
Shane Madden's thesis is that community dynamics, not social media
overload, are the primary culprit.

Recommended reading for the whole research-l list. Thanks for sharing this,
Nemo.

- Jonathan

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 3:21 AM, Ed Summers e...@pobox.com wrote:

 That’s really interesting. One could speculate that there is a general
 fall off in interactivity on other sites as social media behemoth’s like
 Facebook soak up user attention. I know Matt Haughey has written about the
 fall off in site visits to Metafilter [1], which he has attributed to
 changes in Google’s relevancy ranking. I wonder if folks at Metafilter
 would be willing to look at user engagement over time in relation to
 Wikipedia’s stats?

 //Ed

 [1]
 https://medium.com/technology-musings/on-the-future-of-metafilter-941d15ec96f0


  On Dec 11, 2014, at 4:57 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 
  Curious discussion about an editor/activity decline at serverfault:
 http://meta.serverfault.com/questions/6701/server-fault-needs-professional-quality-questions-not-just-questions-from-profe
  Feels a lot like 2009 discussions about Wikipedia in 2007/2008:
 ballooning visits, editors focusing on rollback, sadness spreading, less
 work getting done.
 
  It seems however that every community and research about community is
 going through the same issues and errors? Someone please give them pointers
 to useful research, or something. :)
 
  Nemo
 
  ___
  Wiki-research-l mailing list
  Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l


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




-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Community Research Lead
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)
jmor...@wikimedia.org
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] StackExchange editor decline (serverfault)

[Jonathan Morgan]

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 3:15 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:

 I continue to maintain that editor attrition is due to the natural
 transition from writing and completing new articles to maintaining old
 articles, and have seen nothing to convince me otherwise or of the
 validity of any alternative hypothesis.


/me nods

Sure, that's likely a huge factor. But do you really believe it's the *only*
one?



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




-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Community Research Lead
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)
jmor...@wikimedia.org
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Wikimedia-l] wikipedia access traces ?

[Jonathan Morgan]

See what you started, Pine? *This* is what happens when you get professors
talking about research methods.

:P

- J

On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Benj. Mako Hill m...@atdot.cc wrote:

 quote who=Pine W date=Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 01:49:13PM -0700
  Yes, but supposedly phone survey companies are able to get
  representative samples of broad populations despite many people
  refusing to respond to phone surveys.  If opt-in users were chosen
  using similar methods, could arguably representative data be
  obtained?

 The way that people build representative surveys from
 non-representative data is by understanding quite a lot about the
 nature and structure of the bias in your sample. You might want to
 think about how people do this as trying to create a very complicated
 system of weights.

 Folks who do this for US phone surveys, for example, have spent many
 decades and many millions of dollars on research to understand how to
 get reliable results and even then it's a quickly moving target. They
 still routinely sometimes miss things and get things wrong.

 That said, there are certainly things we can learn. Aaron Shaw and I
 actually did something related with one of the big Wikipedia surveys
 in this article:

 http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0065782

 In our case, our study was only possible because (a) we had very good
 luck finding ground truth data from the right point in time, (b) we
 had detailed demographic data on folks from the WP survey, and (c) we
 make a series of untestable assumptions. After all that work, we still
 can't know that we've got it right. We really can only suggest that
 there are reasons to believe our estimates are better that pretending
 that the opt-in survey is unbiased.

 In the case of signing up for a Wikipedia toolbar, we might not even
 attract a sub-population that even /can/ reliably used to build
 representative estimates. :-(

 Regards,
 Mako


 --
 Benjamin Mako Hill
 http://mako.cc/

 Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far
 as society is free to use the results. --GNU Manifesto

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




-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Learning Strategist
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)
jmor...@wikimedia.org
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] A researcher asking for guidance re: surveys

[Jonathan Morgan]

*Short answer: *In this case, no new paperwork is needed. The survey was
built into Amanda's funded IEG proposal, and so it has already undergone
community review, and received both community and Foundation approval.

So I'm going to throw this particular survey review/support task into my
own court. Amanda, I'll set you up with a Qualtrics account through
Grantmaking's contract with that vendor. Then you and I can plan out the
logistics of the survey.

Pine, you mentioned in an earlier thread that you were interested in
working more on the research side, as part of your IEG Committee
responsibilities. Let me know if you would like to be involved in the
conversation about how best to design and implement this survey.

Cheers,
J


On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Aaron Halfaker ahalfa...@wikimedia.org
wrote:

 Hi Amanda,

 I'm sorry that no one has responded to your question yet.  There's likely
 two reasons: (1) many of us are currently engaged in Wikimania'14 and (2)
 the timing of discussing a new subject recruitment request is tense due to
 an ongoing discussion about how external subject recruitment requests
 should be handled on-wiki.

 Whatever conversation is happening about the current process, there is a
 common practice that I recommend following for running your research on
 Wikipedia.  (1) document your research proposal on meta and (2) engage in a
 conversations with the Wikipedians about your study to make sure that you
 won't inadvertently cause.  If you reach out to me and/or Dario, we will
 help as much as I can.  You've been through this process before, otherwise,
 I'd give more specific instructions.

 As for survey devices, I'd recommend that you use a service that allows
 you to have full control of the data.  This is the best way to ensure that
 you can protect your survey participants' data.  E.g. the WMF privacy
 policy prevents WMF staff from using external survey tools when surveying
 Wikipedia users because of these potential privacy implications.  I am not
 a lawyer, but I assume that this policy would not necessarily apply to you
 and your work.  If you do end up using an external service, you should
 explain the difference to your participants and make sure that they
 consent.

 -Aaron




 On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 3:09 PM, Amanda Menking amenk...@uw.edu wrote:

  Hi,

  I’ve followed the discussion re: surveys on this list recently. As a
 part of my Women and Wikipedia IEG [1], I’ll be deploying a survey re:
 gender and Wikipedia. I very much want to be respectful of the community
 and of my participants; I’d also like to have as many robust replies as
 possible.

  I realize there isn’t a standardized process, but if you’ve practical
 guidance re: 1) recruitment (e.g., user talk pages vs. mailing lists vs.
 notice boards) and 2) tools to use (e.g., SurveyMonkey vs. an internal
 tool—which I’ve yet to discover), I’d love to hear your thoughts.

  I’ve suggested that former IEG grantees mentor new applicants. As a
 part of my work, I’d like to document ways in which researchers can engage
 Wikipedians while respecting their time, eliciting the best possible
 information, and reporting back to the community.

  Thanks!
 Amanda Menking (EN Mssemantics)


  [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Women_and_Wikipedia


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



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




-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Learning Strategist
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)
jmor...@wikimedia.org
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] discussion about wikipedia surveys

[Jonathan Morgan]

On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:36 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com
wrote:

 Jonathan Morgan, 17/07/2014 23:37:
  But because we /look like /an official body, it's easy to blame us for
  failing to prevent disruptive research (if you're a community member),
  for rubber stamping research that we like (ditto), or for drowning
  research in red tape (if you're a wiki-researcher).

 RCOM doesn't *look like* an official body, it claims to be one. With its
 current structure, it looks like a WMF staff committee.

 https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Wikimedia_Committees#Staff_committees

 If you don't want it to look official, it's easy: call it interest
 group, add a draft template, add a under pilot warning, call it a
 subcommittee of the communications committee (a rather common format).


Heh. Well, I wasn't aware it was I was participating in an official body.
Does that mean I get to review proposals under my staff account now? :P

I suppose if *I'm *this confused about RCOM's role, I shouldn't be
surprised that others are too.

- J

-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Learning Strategist
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)
jmor...@wikimedia.org
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l