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

[Juliana Bastos Marques]

rasped my explanation of what the problem was
> and that they should create their accounts from their phones via their
> mobile data not the Wifi (older people don't grasp this as easily in my
> experience). One student choosing to use her USB mobile dongle as an
> alternative. There were some middle-aged and older people in the group who
> tended to ask more "how to " questions but, on the flip side, had generally
> followed my early advice about creating their account in advance and
> practicing on their user page (so all were autoconfirmed users and didn't
> have those problems).
> >
> > However, I can see that without an experienced Wikipedian in the loop
> that things could have gone very badly. And this is the problem for me. I
> can generally help out IF I know about the plan in the first place.
> >
> > As you might have seen in Signpost recently, there was some upset over a
> proposed experiment over giving out random barnstars. As I commented there,
> instead of all the wailing and gnashing of teeth that goes on in the
> Wikipedia community about such things, we would be much better served if we
> tried to find a way to communicate with universities about both
> edit-a-thons and research projects and provide them with some entrypoints
> into our community so we could help them with such things to everyone's
> mutual benefit. Relying on serendipity and personal contacts (which is how
> things currently work) isn't an ideal solution.
> >
> > Kerry
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wiki-research-l
> > [mailto:wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
> > Jonathan Morgan
> > Sent: Saturday, 9 February 2019 4:07 AM
> > To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> > 
> > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] What instructors think about teaching
> with Wikipedia AFTER having tried it?
> >
> > 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
> >>&g

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

[Juliana Bastos Marques]

Jesús, I suppose the key to understanding effectiveness of help pages may
have big variations between language projects. As for the help sections on
WP:PT, they are simply overwhelming, and navigating through them can feel
like wandering through the Minotaur's maze.

Juliana

On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 10:39 AM Jesús Tramullas  wrote:

> Dear colleagues:
>
> I work with Wikipedia in classroom since 2015-2016
> (
> https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Proyecto_educativo/WikiDoc,_Universidad_de_Zaragoza).
>
> Of course, I agree with the common problems about this kind of approach...
>
> ..but now I'm working on a specific area, asking the students: As new
> editor, What do you think about the help pages in Wikipedia? Have you
> used them? Are they helpful? Are they readable? Are they understandable?
>
> So, my approach is to analyze the "technical documentation", identify
> problems and propose improvements.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jesús
> --
> "Investigación básica es lo que hago cuando no sé lo que estoy haciendo."
> "Basic research is what I am doing when I don't know what I am doing."
> Wernher von Braun (1957)
>
> --#
> Ph.D. Jesús Tramullas
> http://tramullas.com
> Dept. Ciencias Documentación // Dept. of Information Studies
> Universidad de Zaragoza 50009 Zaragoza (España)
> #--
>
> ___
> 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

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

[Juliana Bastos Marques]

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

[Wiki-research-l] question - Psychiatry studies

[Juliana Bastos Marques]

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki-research-l] Country (culture...) as a factor in contributing to collective intelligence projects

[Juliana Bastos Marques]

Regarding featured articles, I conducted a small study (should be out in
Oct.) on the Portuguese Wikipedia about those related to Ancient History.
Although the sample was obviously small, my findings were clear and
confirmed by many admins later: most articles are translations/new material
made by a very small group of frequent editors, who use their stats to
legitimate power as admins. Again here, cultural issues pair with specific
community behavior.

Great material, Dariusz, thanks for sharing!

Juliana

On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 7:17 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:

> on a slightly related note, I analyzed the cultural preferences for image,
> references, links, word count etc. saturation in good and featured articles
> on 8 wikis and found significant cultural variation:
>
> http://crow.kozminski.edu.pl/papers/cultures%20of%20wikipedias.pdf
>
> best,
>
> dj
>
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 7:17 PM, Peter Meyer  wrote:
>
> > Interesting topic!   Here is a useful analogy regarding the distribution
> > of sizes.  There has been study of how big cities are within countries or
> > worldwide, and there are recurring patterns of the scale of the largest
> to
> > the second largest, and the second-largest to the third, and so forth.
> >
> > Without getting into this too deeply you might at least check if the size
> > relations among Wikipedias are like those of cities, that is, if they
> have
> > a similar-looking distribution.  If they do, the underlying forces and
> > dynamics for city sizes might also apply to wikipediae or other sites.
> >
> > The math is described by Zipf’s law and/or Gibrat’s distribution.
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zipf%27s_law  > wiki/Zipf's_law>, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibrat%27s_law <
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibrat's_law>.  The work by Xavier Gabaix,
> > cited there, was my introduction to it.
> >
> > Like the choice of what city to move to, the relevant Wikipedias for a
> > user will usually need to be “close” — geographically for a city, or to
> the
> > languages the user knows for a Wikipedia.  There are other factors
> driving
> > a user’s choice, if we think of the user as choosing.  If the user wishes
> > to study an obscure academic subject, they may have to use a large
> > wikipedia, and that drives them to also participate there.  If the user
> is
> > focused on a geographically local subject, that drives the choice.  A
> > larger wikipedia is more useful than a small one, therefore the
> > distribution of wikipedia sizes would be more unequal than the
> distribution
> > of personal languages.
> >
> > It sounds like, based on Poland and Korea, you can show that Internet
> > availability is not driving all the difference.  Good to know.  — peter
> > meyer
> >
> >
> > > On Jul 24, 2018, at 11:30 AM, James Salsman 
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Why do you think different language Wikipedia's have different
> > >> sizes, outside of the popularity of a given language?
> > >
> > > Piotr, if you model organic editing production with a Poisson
> > > distribution, which is reasonable for a first approximation, 3x+
> > > disparities are just natural for the same population sizes:
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_distribution
> > >
> > > I'm not sure the images in that article capture the wide platykurtosis
> > > of large Poisson distributions.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Jim
> > >
> > > ___
> > > 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> 
>  prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
> kierownik katedry MINDS (Management in Networked and Digital Societies)
> Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
> http://NeRDS.kozminski.edu.pl  
>
>
>
> *Ostatnie artykuły:*
>
>- Dariusz Jemielniak, Maciej Wilamowski (2017)  Cultural Diversity of
>Quality of Information on Wikipedias
>
> *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
>
> *Journal
>of Organizational Change Management *29:  3.  361-378.
>- Dariusz Jemielniak, Eduard Aibar (2016)  Bridging the Gap Between
>Wikipedia and Academia
> *Journal of the
>Association for Information Science and Technology* 67:  7.  1773-1776.
>- Dariusz Jemielniak (2016)  Bre

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Country (culture...) as a factor in contributing to collective intelligence projects

[Juliana Bastos Marques]

One other thing to consider is the specifics of how a language
group/culture deals with collaborative work. I have no idea how to tackle
this, though I've seen some studies in that direction.

I'm sure some of you here have heard about the absolute mess and
conflict-ridden Portuguese Wikipedia. It's packed with hard deletionists,
very hostile to newcomers and split into groups constantly fighting for
power. I'm sure that's part of why PT:WP isn't bigger.

Juliana

On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 10:53 AM, Amir E. Aharoni <
amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:

> Very interesting and much-needee research. Thanks for doing this. I'd love
> to see the results and even the process.
>
> Some things to consider:
> 1. How long is the tradition of having published encyclopedias in that
> culture?
> 2. Alphabet: Using a common alphabet may make it somewhat easier to
> translate information between languages that use it, especially for things
> like towns and biographies. The Korean alphabet is used only by one
> language, but the Latin and the Cyrillic alphabets are used by many (with
> variations).
> 3. How long is the tradition of *actually* having public education for
> everybody: rich and poor, cities and villages? By "actually" I mean "not
> just by law, but in practice".
> 4. How long is the tradition of mostly-universal literacy? ("Literacy" is
> one of the most fuzzily defined concepts. Here I refer to something like
> "being able to read a newspaper and to write a one-page letter in one's own
> native language".)
> 5. How long is the tradition of having public libraries in most towns and
> villages?
> 6. How common is it to know other languages?
> 7. How isolated or open is the society that speaks this language in terms
> of access to media from other countries, translation of literature from
> other languages, travel to other countries?
> 8. How widespread are basic computer literacy skills: using a web browser;
> sending an email; copying, down/uploading, and deleting files.
> 9. How long is the tradition of having language resources, such as
> dictionaries, spelling standards, thesauri, style guides?
> 10. Is the language used completely in public education for teaching,
> textbooks, and homework? Or is the education mostly done in a foreign
> language? (This, roughly, is the situation in the Philippines and in many
> African countries.)
> 11. When did the language become an official language of a country? (If at
> all.)
> 12. Are there political, cultural, or government-suported movements for
> language development or preservation?
> 13. When did it become universally possible to fully write this language on
> a computer, with complete keyboards and fonts support? E.g., English has
> been easy to use on any computer for as long as there are computers;
> Polish, German, Russian and many other languages have been supported for a
> long time, but still struggled with encodings and diacritics in the 1990s;
> India and Burma are still struggling; I'm not sure about Korea.
>
> These are the immediate things I can think about. There are probably many
> more criteria that could be considered.
>
> The economics around a country are probably very important (poverty, access
> to infrastructure, healthcare, etc.), and you mentioned in your first email
> that you accounted for it, although I don't know in how much detail, so I
> trust you on that :)
>
>
> בתאריך 24 ביולי 2018 12:04,‏ "Piotr Konieczny"  כתב:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I am working on a paper on why/whether people contribute (or not) to
> collective intelligence differently projects in different countries. The
> paper was inspired, partially, by several discussions I had with various
> people on why different language Wikipedia's have different sizes,
> besides (doh) the popularity of the language (and yes, English is
> biggest because it is international; and yes, I am aware a few
> Wikipedias are outliers because of bots creating machine translations or
> auto-populating villages or such). But for example, Poland and South
> Korea have roughly similar population/speakers and development status,
> yet Polish Wikipedia is over 3x the size of the SK one and no bot can
> account for that. So, there's more to that. I am already feeding dozens
> of parameters to a spreadsheet for some modelling, but I a) wonder what
> I might have missed - before a reviewer asks 'why didn't you check for
> xyz' and b) would like to have a few nice sentences about how things
> that people expect to matter do not (or vice versa). Hence, my question
> to you all, in the form of this open question mini survey:
>
> Why do you think different language Wikipedia's have different sizes,
> outside of the popularity of a given language?
>
> For reference, list of Wikipedias by size and language:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias
>
> TIA!
>
>
> --
> Piotr Konieczny, PhD
> http://hanyang.academia.edu/PiotrKonieczny
> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=gdV8_AEJ
> http://e

[Wiki-research-l] Working paper - feedback requested

[Juliana Bastos Marques]

Hi all. I was wondering if anyone would be interested in discussing a paper
I've been working on, which uses Wikipedia to assess questions on
authorship and authority in Ancient Historiography.

I don't know where is the best place to upload the draft, though... There's
the Academia.edu "sessions" draft, and of course Google docs, but maybe you
know some better option?

Here's the current paper:

Title:  Is Livy a good Wikipedian? Authority and authorship in ancient
historiography through the lenses of contemporary anonymous writing

Abstract: In this paper, I present an experiment conducted in an online
environment akin to Wikipedia, where proficient Wikipedia editors evaluate
three texts from Livy, presented to them without their knowledge and with
different authorship attributions, in order to assess whether Livy's
writing would conform to the standards of notability and impartiality on
Wikipedia, while aiming also to understand how the influence of different
attributions of authorship affects the recognition of authority in history
texts. The ultimate goal of this experiment is to demonstrate the
interconnection between modes of presentation of literary authority and the
construction and need for an authorial persona. The choice of Livy as
evaluated author sheds light on traditional topics of Livian scholarship,
such as his use of sources and self-presentation, while also indicating
differences and similarities in ancient and contemporary historiographical
parameters.

Although I use Livy as the author for my experiment, my main focus is
really on theoretical aspects related to authority and authorship. I've
written quite a substantial part on the workings of Wikipedia because I
intend to publish for academic readers which are not very knowledgeable
about it. I've already detected some methodological issues, so I'm eager to
see what others have to say. My current discussion with fellow classicists
has been a bit difficult, for as you may imagine, the field is very
traditional - to put it nicely.

Thank you all,
Juliana

-- 
www.domusaurea.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] FW: Re: Editor participation rates in surveys

[Juliana Bastos Marques]

Yes, I also received this horrible spam.

Juliana

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 9:58 PM, Kerry Raymond 
wrote:

> I just received this response to my message to this wiki-research mailing
> list. Do we think it acceptable that people sign up to this list with this
> kind of demand for payment? I don’t.
>
>
>
> Sure I can just delete the email, but I don’t believe this is acceptable
> behaviour when this person has presumably willingly signed up to this list
> and should therefore be willing to receive legitimate messages sent to it
> by other list members.
>
>
>
> Kerry
>
>
>
> From: REMOVED BY KERRY
> Sent: Wednesday, 1 November 2017 11:15 AM
> To: kerry.raym...@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Editor participation rates in surveys
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hello!
>
> I use a new email filtering service called BitBounce to better filter my
> spam. To deliver your email to my inbox, please click the link below and
> pay the small Bitcoin fee. Thank you!
>
>   You can sign up or get more info
> about BitBounce by clicking here.
>
> To deliver your email:
>
>   We’ve never met.
> I’ll pay your fee.
>
>   32440322?email_address=kerry.raymond%40gmail.com&ref=bitbounce> I know
> you. Add me to your whitelist.
>
>   
>
> Email that pays.
>
>
>
> BitBounce is a product by:
>
> Turing Cloud
>
>   BitBounce.com
>
> Redwood City, CA
>
> BitBounce integrates with:
>
> CoinBase
>
>   CoinBase.com
>
> San Francisco, CA
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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

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

[Juliana Bastos Marques]

Thanks for your reply, Jonathan. I was wondering if anybody has ever
conducted a systematic research on the variables that you listed.

I had a sample of the 200 editors with more edits (30 days in Sept/Oct) on
Portuguese Wikipedia, and 11 of these participated. I could have adopted
other criteria - for instance, only 34 of these are admins, 2 are bots -,
but for my purposes I just wanted a small sample with an objective
selection. Indeed, the participation rate of 5,5% was expected, but I was
wondering if there are any studies that can corroborate this.

Thanks,
Juliana

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 5:27 PM, Jonathan Morgan 
wrote:

> 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) <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
>



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

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

[Juliana Bastos Marques]

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Quality on different language version

[Juliana Bastos Marques]

Ziko, could you please supply the full reference to Haber's article?
Indeed, what I observe in History-related articles is almost a tendency
towards positivism, histoire événementielle - hence, for instance, the vast
number of battle themes. Discussion of historiographic approaches to
concepts is usually quite rare and badly written.

Anyone willing to conduct comparative research on quality of
History-related articles, please drop me a note!

Juliana.


On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:

> Dear Anders,
>
> Thank you for bringing this up. My experience is that there is still a
> huge gap between computer-based quantity-oriented studies and
> human-based selective sample quality-oriented studies.
>
> I published in 2009 a paper on "small" or "weak" articles but I am
> afraid that it was too much a numbers' game. It contained a table that
> differentiated between large, middle-sized, small and mini Wikipedias,
> with some assumptions on the quality and the power to cover topics.
>
> Last year I started with a paper but the publishers seemed not to
> finish their project. I compared the notability criteria of en, de,
> nl, af (Afrikaans) and fo (Frisian) and found out that they are
> actually very comparable, as far as they can be compared at all. The
> often assumed "severity" of de.wp on notability seems to be a myth,
> maybe based on anti German cliche.
>
> Now I have made for my lectures a table of small and larger
> encyclopedic articles in order to compare a topic in different
> reference works. Reason for this is also my contribution to the
> Historians' Convention (Historikertag) later this year. My basic
> question is whether Wikipedia is a good starting point for a historic
> topic, following the research of early deceased Swiss historian Peter
> Haber.
>
> Haber made his point i.a. at the example of [[de:Frühmittelalter]]
> (early middle ages) in 2010. That article, he complained, contained no
> real inaccuracies, but still it was useless for a student. No good
> structure, some facts put one after the other etc. His explanation: if
> you want to write an article about a person, say about Henri Dunant,
> you take some biographies and write from his birth to his death and
> legacy. That's relatively easy and can be done by any good writer. But
> for a comprehensive article on the early middle ages, you must be a
> skilled historian very familiar with the period.
>
> (I now experience the same with a series of Wikipedia articles I write
> about a certain period in German history. Just following the (older)
> standard reference works would simply not make me happy, not be a
> really valuable contribution to Wikipedia. With (nearly) every new
> work I get from the inter library loan I see that it is good to wait
> with publication of an article until I have together the set of works
> I deem necessary. - I consider to write a kind of report about this
> series.)
>
> It would be great to have a set of criteria for an article typology,
> based partially on function of the article (overview, or registration
> of an item in a row etc.) and the inner quality (structure,
> comprehensiveness, based on literature etc.).
>
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2014-06-10 14:34 GMT+02:00 Anders Wennersten :
> > My starting point have been the newly created articles on svwp. They will
> > represent the usual bunch of football playser, tv-stars, computergames,
> > films  etc where svwp are behind most versions but where enwp is
> excellent.
> > The interesting comparisons comes from the next levels of articles that
> can
> > be almost anything, a footballstadium in Kazan Russia, an albanian poet,
> a
> > church in Venize, a specie with unclear taxonomy, the american solider
> who
> > perhaps deserted etc. In these cases I only often find a corresponding
> > article in enwp, but also very often (around 20%) I find it in another
> > version and no presence in enwp.
> >
> > And when enwp is not giving me support, I most often find support in eswp
> > and frwp, sometimes in dewp, but almost never in ptwp. For exemple
> > taxanomical threes  with name in native and latin is about the weakest in
> > ptwp. But I can be wrong and I would love to be part in a more complete
> > research on Q comparisons for the different versions
> >
> >
> > Anders
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Juliana Bastos Marques skrev 2014-06-10 14:06:
> >
> > This topic comes in handy for my research on Featured Articles in WP:PT.
> >

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Quality on different language version

[Juliana Bastos Marques]

This topic comes in handy for my research on Featured Articles in WP:PT.
Maybe some of you may remember my request a little while ago about studies
on Wikipedias other than English. Well, not that I believe that the
Featured Article requirements are a good evaluation per se, in terms of
quality of content.

Anders, what are the articles you evaluated? I'm curious to find out what
was so bad in the Portuguese Wikipedia. Indeed, there are many problems
there, but I'm surprised to hear that it looks so bad. I know it's a drop
in the ocean, but I've been fixing some new articles that are translations
from bad English ones - which look good, but analyzing the content reveals
many problems.

Juliana.


On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Anders Wennersten  wrote:

>  Thanks for answer
>
> Your answer confirm my "fear", that focus is almost completly to en:wp and
> how it is compared with an ideal perfect Q
>
> My interest and what I believe the movement need before we dig into next
> round of strategy round is
> *what versions are dysfunctional. These represent a risk for the movement
> as they can jeoprdaize the brand name, as they are not living up to basic Q
> (and NPOV)
> *what can we learn from each other, why are some better in some aspects
> and worse in others?
>
> I would recommend a research approach much more basic just collecting some
> few data on each version (and forget about enwp)
>
> Anders
>
>
>
> Heather Ford skrev 2014-06-10 13:09:
>
> Hi Anders,
>
> Yes, it's a great question! Mark Graham and I are currently working on a
> project around how to determine quality within and between Wikipedias and
> I've been looking around for literature. I'm only just starting the
> literature review but I've found some interesting studies by Callahan &
> Herring (2011) [1] and Stvilia, Al-Faraj, and Yi (2009) [2]. The majority
> of quality studies, we find, have been done on English Wikipedia (starting
> with the famous 2005 Nature study) but there have been few studies that
> assess of quality between languages. If you find anything else, let us
> know!
>
>  Thanks!
>
>  Best,
> heather.
>
> [1] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.21577/abstract
>
> [2]
> http://www.researchgate.net/publication/200773220_Issues_of_cross-contextual_information_quality_evaluation_-_The_case_of_Arabic_English_and_Korean_Wikipedia/file/60b7d51ae682e9912a.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
>  Heather Ford
> Oxford Internet Institute  Doctoral Programme
> EthnographyMatters  | Oxford Digital
> Ethnography Group 
> http://hblog.org | @hfordsa 
>
>
>
>
> On 10 June 2014 07:58, Anders Wennersten  wrote:
>
>> (reposted from Wikimedia-i)
>>
>> I have several times asked for a professional quality study of our
>> different language versions, but not seen it exist or being done, perhaps
>> you know more on this list?. before we start the strategy work I  believe
>> we should have basic facts on the table like this one
>>
>> I therefor list here my subjective impression after daily looking into
>> the different version for 5-15 articles (new ones being created on sv.wp)
>> (I list them in order how often I use them to calibrate the svwp articles).
>>
>> enwp- a magnitude better then any other. main weakeness are articles on
>> marginal subjects that seems to be allowed to exist there, even if rather
>> bad, and without templates (noone cares to patrol these?)
>>
>> eswp - a very  good version, which in the general discussion are not
>> getting appropriate credit
>>
>> dewp - good when the articles exist, but many serious holes. Is the
>> elitist way of running it, discouraging new editors in non obvious subjects
>> (that after time passes gets very relevant)?
>> frwp - also good, but somewhat scattered quality both in coverage and the
>> different articles (even in same subject area)
>> nlwp - very good coverage in the geographic subjects, decent quality on
>> articles but limited "world" coverage in areas like biographies
>> itwp - good articles but a bit italiancentered,
>>
>> nowp - small but decent articles. Their short focused articletext
>> sometimes give more easyaccessed knowledge then an overly long one in other
>> languages
>>
>> ptwp - the real disappointment. it is among the top ten in volume and
>> accesses but clearly missing a lot, and even existing articles are uneven.
>> I now use it even less then Ukrainian and Russian which I use very seldom
>> as the different alphabet makes it hard to understand the article content
>>
>> dawp,fiwp and plwp -Ok but only used by me for articles related to the
>> country
>>
>> (arabic, chinese and japanese I almost never use, too complicated)
>>
>> (I also use some smaller ones like sqwp , in these versions I have seen
>> serious quality problems not to be found in any of the above ones, I am not
>> sure they even have basic patrolling in place)
>>
>> Anders
>>

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Studies in Featured Articles.

[Juliana Bastos Marques]

Thank you Felipe and Finn for your indications, they were very helpful.

I'm not sure, however, if I was clear in my request. I'd like to know about
studies written in languages other than English, rather than about
Wikipedias in other languages.

Thanks,
Juliana.


On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Finn Årup Nielsen  wrote:

> Dear Julinana,
>
>
> On 04/28/2014 03:59 AM, Juliana Bastos Marques wrote:
>
>  Hi all! I've been looking for studies about editing dynamics of Featured
>> Articles. Would anyone know about papers *in languages other than
>> English* with this theme?
>>
>
> I have made an example query on Non-English Featured articles on Wikilit:
>
> http://wikilit.referata.com/wiki/Help:Example_queries#Non-
> English_Featured_articles
>
> It lists the following:
>
> "Issues of cross-contextual information quality evaluation-the case of
> Arabic, English, and Korean Wikipedias"
>
> "Quality assessment process in Wikipedia's Vetrina: the role of the
> community's policies and rules"
>
> "Wikipedia - a quantitative analysis"
>
>
> best
> Finn Årup Nielsen
> http://www.compute.dtu.dk/~faan/
>
>
> ___
> 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

[Wiki-research-l] Studies in Featured Articles.

[Juliana Bastos Marques]

Hi all! I've been looking for studies about editing dynamics of Featured
Articles. Would anyone know about papers *in languages other than
English* with this theme?

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Upcoming research newsletter: new papers open for review

[Juliana Bastos Marques]

Do you publish on papers in languages other than English?

Juliana.


On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Tilman Bayer  wrote:

> Hi Heather,
>
> that's a cool idea, and we have actually been considering something
> like this already. While the names of the reviewers are prominently
> displayed in the byline on top (and also, many readers of the Signpost
> and the newsletter are of course experienced in reading version
> histories), showing them next to each review might be make attribution
> easier. We just haven't found the time to implement it yet, like with
> many other things for the newsletter. You are welcome to figure out a
> suitable format and add these attributions in the upcoming issue,
> let's follow up offlist if more information is needed.
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 1:11 AM, Heather Ford  wrote:
> > Thanks, Dario, Tilman!
> >
> > I was wondering whether it would be helpful to add reviewer
> names/usernames
> > to individual signpost reviews. I was struck while reading a review of a
> > paper on Signpost recently that I felt like the reviewer was inserting
> some
> > very opinionated statements about the article rather than the regular
> > summaries. While I don't think that this is a problem necessarily
> (although
> > I wish that they were a bit more informed about the topic and social
> science
> > research in general), I do think it can be problematic to have these
> > comments unattributed. Would be interested to hear what others think...
> >
> > Best,
> > Heather.
> >
> > Heather Ford
> > Oxford Internet Institute Doctoral Programme
> > EthnographyMatters | Oxford Digital Ethnography Group
> > http://hblog.org | @hfordsa
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 25 February 2014 05:26, Tilman Bayer  wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Max,
> >>
> >> yes, we're co-publishing with the Signpost, so the ultimate deadline
> >> is the Signpost's actual publication time. Its formal publication date
> >> is this Wednesday (the 26th) UTC, although actual publication might
> >> take place several hours or even a few days later. Thanks for signing
> >> up to review the "Editor's Biases" paper, I'm looking forward to
> >> reading your summary!
> >>
> >> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Klein,Max  wrote:
> >> > Dario, what's the timeframe for writing reviews so they can get into
> the
> >> > signpost in time. 25th?
> >> >
> >> > Maximilian Klein
> >> > Wikipedian in Residence, OCLC
> >> > +17074787023
> >> >
> >> > 
> >> > From: wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> >  on behalf of Dario
> Taraborelli
> >> > 
> >> > Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 8:11 AM
> >> > To: A mailing list for the Analytics Team at WMF and everybody who has
> >> > an   interest in Wikipedia and analytics.; Research into Wikimedia
> >> > content and communities
> >> > Subject: [Wiki-research-l] Upcoming research newsletter: new papers
> open
> >> > forreview
> >> >
> >> > Hi everybody,
> >> >
> >> > with CSCW just concluded and conferences like CHI and WWW coming up we
> >> > have a good set of papers to review for the February issue of the
> Research
> >> > Newsletter [1]
> >> >
> >> > Please take a look at: https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/WRN201402 and
> >> > add your name next to any paper you are interested in reviewing. As
> usual,
> >> > short notes and one-paragraph reviews are most welcome.
> >> >
> >> > Instead of contacting past contributors only, this month we're
> >> > experimenting with a public call for reviews cross-posted to
> analytics-l and
> >> > wiki-research-l. if you have any question about the format or process
> feel
> >> > free to get in touch off-list.
> >> >
> >> > Dario Taraborelli and Tilman Bayer
> >> >
> >> > [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter
> >> > ___
> >> > 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Tilman Bayer
> >> Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
> >> 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
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Tilman Bayer
> Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
> Wikimedia Foundation
> IRC (Freenode): HaeB
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lis

Re: [Wiki-research-l] advice on Wikipedia topics for WikiSym 2013

[Juliana Bastos Marques]

Is there any interest on adding a topic related to Education? Sorry for
insisting on this, but I'd really like to know whether I should focus my
efforts on this group or start from the ground - in terms of congresses and
journals - in another one.

Juliana.



On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Fuster, Mayo  wrote:

> Great! Thank you Heather.
>
> You did not make reference in your reply to it so it is difficult to know
> if you consider it, but I still think adding gender question into the call
> for papers would be a good idea.
>
> Thank you again. Cheers! Mayo
>
>  «·´`·.(*·.¸(`·.¸ ¸.·´)¸.·*).·´`·»
> «·´¨*·¸¸« Mayo Fuster Morell ».¸.·*¨`·»@Lilaroja
>   «·´`·.(¸.·´(¸.·* *·.¸)`·.¸).·´`·»
>
> Fellow. Berkman Center for Internet and Society. Harvard University.
> Researcher. Institute of Government and Public Policies. Autonomous
> University of Barcelona.
> Ph.D European University Institute
>
> Website: http://www.onlinecreation.info
> 
> From: wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [
> wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] on behalf of Heather Ford [
> hfor...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 11:32 PM
> To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> Cc: Mark Graham
> Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] advice on Wikipedia topics for WikiSym 2013
>
> Thank you, Mayo :)
>
> I think one of the problems with WikiSym - especially the research tracks
> - is that it is (mostly) an academic conference and so is almost entirely
> dependent on the academic pool (+ funding challenges etc) for participants.
> That said, we're co-located with Wikimania this year which means that
> hopefully we can draw from a larger group of practitioners and researchers.
>
> I'll definitely reach out to the WikiWomen's Collective and hopefully with
> enough time to plan ahead, we'll be able to engage more women in next
> year's event!
>
> Thanks again for your suggestions.
>
> Best,
> Heather.
>
> On Nov 23, 2012, at 7:57 PM, Fuster, Mayo wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> Thank you Heather for the note!. The call looks interesting to me, but I
> would suggest to add gender inclusion as a topic at the call for paper, as
> it is a central problem in Wikipedia.
>
> Additionally, I would encourage the organizers of Wikisym 2013 to make an
> extra effort in order to assure engaging women in the conference. In 2012,
> the organizers of Wikisym were highly predominantly male: 89% of the
> Symposium Committee, 78% of the Program Committee, and 80% of the program
> of speakers were men (according to the data provided at
> http://www.wikisym.org/ws2012/bin/view/Main/Schedule). While other
> technological related conference (such as OK Fest and Personal Democracy
> Forum) are able to engage a better gender balance (data provided here:
> http://wiki.digital-commons.net/Gender).
>
> In case it could he of help, this wiki collect best practices to engage
> women in technology related conferences and list of women experts:
> http://wiki.digital-commons.net/Gender
>
> The WikiWomen's Collaborative wiki might also be a useful resource:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:WikiWomen%27s_Collaborative
>
> Thank you again. Have a nice day! Mayo
>
> «·´`·.(*·.¸(`·.¸ ¸.·´)¸.·*).·´`·»
> «·´¨*·¸¸« Mayo Fuster Morell ».¸.·*¨`·»@Lilaroja
>  «·´`·.(¸.·´(¸.·* *·.¸)`·.¸).·´`·»
>
> Fellow. Berkman Center for Internet and Society. Harvard University.
> Researcher. Institute of Government and Public Policies. Autonomous
> University of Barcelona.
> Ph.D European University Institute
>
> Website: http://www.onlinecreation.info
> 
> From: wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org> [
> wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] on behalf of Heather Ford [
> hfor...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 8:34 PM
> To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> Cc: Mark Graham
> Subject: [Wiki-research-l] advice on Wikipedia topics for WikiSym 2013
>
> Mark Graham and I are co-chairs of the Wikipedia Track at next year's
> WikiSym conference (now with added OpenSym!) and we're preparing the call
> for papers to go out Friday week. There has been such great discussion on
> this list in the past about what is currently missing from Wikipedia
> research that I thought I'd send our draft to you in case there are items
> that you think we might add? Our current suggestions below:
>
>• What do particular articles or groups or articles tell us about
> the norms, governance and architecture of Wikipedia and its impact on
> media, politics and the social sphere? How is information on Wikipedia
> being shaped by the materiality of Wikipedia infrastructure?
>
>• What is the impact of all/some of Wikipedia’s 211 language
> editions having on achieving the project’s goal to represent the “sum of
> all human knowledge”? Do smaller language editions follow the same
> develo

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki Research Jounal?

[Juliana Bastos Marques]

Ed and others, based on your observations, I'd like to pose a side question:

The impression that I get from many of these symposia (and journals) is
that there is not much space for research concerning Wikipedia and
Education, such as teaching methodologies, case studies and such, not on
the side of hard-science chunks of data. I know of lots of other professors
who are doing the same thing as myself, but I see not many places for
exchanging our experiences (conference-wise, not online channels, which,
franky, I don't think are working much). Do you feel there is good room to
topics such as mine?

Thanks,
Juliana.


On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Ed H. Chi  wrote:

> There has been a lot of talk about how to start a journal.  The real
> issue in starting a journal is not the editorial board, or the way it
> is published, or whether it will gather the citation impact.  The real
> issue is READERSHIP.
>
> If you can get people to read the journal, then it will have editors
> wanting to serve the journal, and it will gather citation impact.
>
> The reason why WikiSym is changing is for the same reason.  People are
> not going to the conference!  I think the attendance has been below
> 100 for some time now.  That's not a sustainable number for the amount
> of work that goes into organizing a conference.
>
> ---
> Ed H. Chi, Staff Research Scientist, Google
> CHI2012 Technical Program co-chair
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki Research Jounal…

[Juliana Bastos Marques]

As for any candidates for institutional academic support, I could easily
arrange for my university, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro State
(UNIRIO - http://www.unirio.br), where I've been setting a wiki research
Lab and we have a very good Library Studies Dept., where they can help us
with the setting of the journal. Brazil has a wide experience in
open-access journals (we don't have these paywalls at all. See, e.g.,
http://www.scielo.org).

In fact, I do think that two or three institutions working as partners to
host the journal would be great (one of them being WMF?), and in keeping
with current international academic goals.

Juliana.



On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Pierre-Carl Langlais <
langlais.qo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Thanks a lot for these interesting information. I have given a look at the
> French Institute of scientific evaluation (AERES). Their requirements are
> very simlar :
> (1) Open editorial comittee, with international range and a main focus of
> research.
> (2) Efficient selection process (which imply a significant rate of
> rejection)
> (3) International openness.
> (4) Institutionnal support (from scientific organization…)
> (5) Good quality management (timeliness…)
> (6) Implication in disciplinary and community debates.
>
> It's certainly far from the ambitious projects of emirjp, but I have
> expanded a bit my shaping device :
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Alexander_Doria/First_Proposal_for_a_Wiki_Journal
>
> Concerning the wiki vs. wider thematic, I think the matter ought to be
> considered on a strategic level. The wiki is undeniably a good market
> niche, as no specific journal covers the topics so far. Yet, as an
> experiment in open access, the journal may have some legitimacy to tackle
> collaborative and open knowledge wider thema. Therefore, I would rather
> support a flexible position : the main focus remains wiki-research even
> though the scientific comittee can, from time to time, go beyond this
> definite range.
>
> PCL
>
> I'd like to provide some data for comparison in terms of requirements for
> traditional academic journals. The Brazilian committee for my area that
> rates journals and acts as standard for cvs, tenures etc, lists [1]:
>
> - editor-in-chief
> - editorial committee
> - consultive committee
> - ISSN
> - editorial policies
> - submission rules
> - peer-review
> - at least 14 annual articles
> - institutional affiliation for authors
> - institutional affiliation for committee members
> - abstracts and keywords in at least two languages
> - dates for articles receives and for articles published
> - must have at least one year of existence
> - regular periodicity
>
> My area happens to be History, and I know maybe some of these requirements
> are not exactly fitting for the intended goal here. But, like I said, I'm
> just listing some elements you might consider including.
>
> Juliana.
>
>
> [1]
> http://www.capes.gov.br/images/stories/download/avaliacao/Qualis_-_Historia.pdf
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais <
> langlais.qo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I have just made a very quick draft to have a general idea of what the
>> journal could be :
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Alexander_Doria/First_Proposal_for_a_Wiki_Journal
>>
>> It includes notably a « Making-Of » section that comprises all the
>> working and contextual texts that are not visible in most academic journals.
>>
>> PCL
>>
>> As far as my experience goes, the required group of editors would be an
>> editor-in-chief, an executive committee and a scientific committee, mostly
>> responsible for the peer reviews. Since I would like to participate, this
>> reminds me what criteria would be adopt for recruiting these, and how this
>> decision will be taken. I also assume that one or more universities (or an
>> academic institution, for that matter) would have to provide support - as
>> of, "published by...".
>>
>> Of course, this is the traditional way... Some things can be changed, but
>> others need to be retained in order for the journal to receive academic
>> recognition.
>>
>> Juliana.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais <
>> langlais.qo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> One idea would be to appoint one or several volunteer editor(s). They
>>> could ensure all the formal and administrative aspects of the journal:
>>> receiving and anonymizing the propositions, publishing them on the wiki,
>>> editing the final Wiki and PDF versions, keep in touch with ISI and other
>>> evaluation system and so on…
>>>
>>> @emirjp : well you can already count me in :)
>>>
>>>  Not my case, but I understand that there are people in that situation.
 This story was the same in 2001, when people thought that only an
 expert-written encyclopedia with very rigid methods would be successful.

 Good for you, but it is somewhat irrelevant. I'd speculate that
 possibly even most of the academic journals' production is do

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki Research Jounal…

[Juliana Bastos Marques]

I'd like to provide some data for comparison in terms of requirements for
traditional academic journals. The Brazilian committee for my area that
rates journals and acts as standard for cvs, tenures etc, lists [1]:

- editor-in-chief
- editorial committee
- consultive committee
- ISSN
- editorial policies
- submission rules
- peer-review
- at least 14 annual articles
- institutional affiliation for authors
- institutional affiliation for committee members
- abstracts and keywords in at least two languages
- dates for articles receives and for articles published
- must have at least one year of existence
- regular periodicity

My area happens to be History, and I know maybe some of these requirements
are not exactly fitting for the intended goal here. But, like I said, I'm
just listing some elements you might consider including.

Juliana.


[1]
http://www.capes.gov.br/images/stories/download/avaliacao/Qualis_-_Historia.pdf




On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais <
langlais.qo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I have just made a very quick draft to have a general idea of what the
> journal could be :
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Alexander_Doria/First_Proposal_for_a_Wiki_Journal
>
> It includes notably a « Making-Of » section that comprises all the working
> and contextual texts that are not visible in most academic journals.
>
> PCL
>
> As far as my experience goes, the required group of editors would be an
> editor-in-chief, an executive committee and a scientific committee, mostly
> responsible for the peer reviews. Since I would like to participate, this
> reminds me what criteria would be adopt for recruiting these, and how this
> decision will be taken. I also assume that one or more universities (or an
> academic institution, for that matter) would have to provide support - as
> of, "published by...".
>
> Of course, this is the traditional way... Some things can be changed, but
> others need to be retained in order for the journal to receive academic
> recognition.
>
> Juliana.
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais <
> langlais.qo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> One idea would be to appoint one or several volunteer editor(s). They
>> could ensure all the formal and administrative aspects of the journal:
>> receiving and anonymizing the propositions, publishing them on the wiki,
>> editing the final Wiki and PDF versions, keep in touch with ISI and other
>> evaluation system and so on…
>>
>> @emirjp : well you can already count me in :)
>>
>>  Not my case, but I understand that there are people in that situation.
>>> This story was the same in 2001, when people thought that only an
>>> expert-written encyclopedia with very rigid methods would be successful.
>>>
>>> Good for you, but it is somewhat irrelevant. I'd speculate that possibly
>>> even most of the academic journals' production is done by people who do
>>> have to care where they publish. Per comparing the situation to Wikipedia
>>> in 2001, I want to firmly state that oranges are much better than apples.
>>>
>>> Entering the journal rankings is based on citation numbers, right? I did
>>> this suggest thinking on the valuable researchers in this list, which may
>>> be interested in publishing/peer-reviewing stuff in the journal. Won't you
>>> cite that papers?
>>>
>>> The JCR journal ranking, which so far is the only one that matters (in
>>> spite of its major flaws, methodological issues, etc.), bases on the number
>>> of citations counted ONLY in other journals already listed in it.
>>>
>>> But there are also threshold requirements to be even considered for JCR
>>> ranking, and obviously a double-blind peer reviews is a must. For practical
>>> reasons of indexing, paper redistribution, etc., PDFs and numbered pages
>>> also make life of a person who wants to cite a paper much easier.
>>>
>>> While I support your idea in principle, I think that it requires much
>>> more effort, planning, and understanding of how academic publishing and
>>> career paths actually work, than in the concept of "all we need is wiki".
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>>
>>> dj
>>> __**_
>>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> www.domusaurea.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.