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

[Nick Wilson (Quiddity)]

See also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Health/Mental
and semi-related
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Personality
plus the essays
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Obsessive%E2%80%93compulsive_disorder_editors
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:High-functioning_autism_and_Asperger%27s_editors
(plus the French and Chinese Wikipedia's equivalent pages for that second
essay, which likely have different content)

Sidenote: I worry about those userboxes, for the same reasons mentioned in
this thread. I wonder if there ought to be a warning at the top of that
listing-page, reminding editors to be careful... [but userboxes are a
complicated can of worms, and it's probably been discussed before, so I
won't wade into it.]

--Quiddity
___
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

[Nick Wilson (Quiddity)]

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 5:23 PM Kerry Raymond 
wrote:

> That's why I think we need "signatures" which is my shorthand for things
> like a hash function or a bounding box, a means by which many non-matching
> accounts can be eliminated at low cost, reserving the high cost comparisons
> (machine or human) only for high probability candidates. [...]
>

The https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Scoring_Platform_team might
have some insights into these questions, although I believe they (current
and some former members) are active on this mailing list, so might chime in
here.

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 11:52 PM Timothy Wood 
wrote:

> Then again, apparently the Foundation has a PR team whose only job is to
> [...]
>

Please do not denigrate groups of people. Communicating about the
movement's mission and activities with large parts of the outside world,
and helping others in the movement to also do so, is an important role (and
is just part of their role). Similar to your own role in OTRS. However that
is all off-topic in this thread.

I hope everyone has a pleasant weekend.
Quiddity
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Query user history edits

[Nick Wilson (Quiddity)]

Hi Haifeng,

Regarding the Toolforge account, I'm sorry to say that account creation is
currently disabled. This is a temporary measure that we hope to be able to
undo soon, but for now there is no exact timeline or public phabricator
tasks I can point you to to follow. However, I've added you to the list of
people to ping when it is available again. Thank you for your patience.


On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 8:18 PM Haifeng Zhang 
wrote:

> Thanks a lot for answering my questions, guys.
>
> May I save/upload my own table (with user names and time ranges) to Quarry?
>
> It looks I have to manually enter these information in SQL queries.
>
>
> Also, I tried to get a Toolforge account. When following the step to
>
> Create a Wikimedia developer account<
> https://toolsadmin.wikimedia.org/register/>, the page showed:
>
> "Developer account creation is currently disabled. We apologise for the
> inconvenience."
>
>
> Best,
>
> Haifeng Zhang
> 
> From: Wiki-research-l  on
> behalf of Maximilian Klein 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 12:46:39 PM
> To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Query user history edits
>
> Sample query I just wrote that get the edit count of a single user (by
> username) during a period of time on Quarry:
> https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/34716 .
> The gotcha that might be important for this query is using the table
> `revision_userindex` rather than the play revision table which doesn't have
> such an index.
>
>
> Make a great day,
> Max Klein ‽ http://notconfusing.com/
>
>
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 at 09:42, Aaron Halfaker 
> wrote:
>
> > If you share why kind of query you'd like to run, people on this list
> might
> > even write you an example Quarry :)  See also:
> > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Quarry  People post query requests
> > that
> > and others help them draft the right query for their needs.
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 11:28 AM James Hare  wrote:
> >
> > > I will also note that Quarry  is good for
> > > querying database replicas – no Toolforge account required.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > *James Hare* (he/him)
> > > Associate Product Manager
> > > Wikimedia Foundation 
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 9:30 AM Morten Wang  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Haifeng,
> > > >
> > > > In my experience, this depends on how many users you're looking to
> get
> > > > information about. Is it a few hundred? A few thousand? A million+?
> > > >
> > > > If you are getting the edit history for a limited number of users
> (say
> > a
> > > > few hundred to a few thousand), then using the API can work well. One
> > > thing
> > > > to keep in mind when using the API is that your requests might be
> > > throttled
> > > > and/or there might be database lag. Are you using a software library
> to
> > > > access the API? If not, I'd consider using one so that throttling/lag
> > > > doesn't become an issue, it's one of the reasons why I use Pywikibot
> > > >  for API requests.
> > > >
> > > > If you're interested in querying a large number of users (say tens of
> > > > thousands or more), then getting an account on Toolforge
> > > >  so you can run SQL queries against the
> > > > replicated MediaWiki databases would make sense. I've frequently used
> > > that
> > > > approach for data gathering for research purposes.
> > > >
> > > > Hope that helps! And if not, don't hesitate to ask questions :)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Morten
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 at 07:22, Haifeng Zhang  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Dear folks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Is there a good way to query a user's edit history, e.g., edit
> count
> > > > > during a period?
> > > > >
> > > > > My current solution is using usercontribs API (
> > > > > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Usercontribs).
> > > > >
> > > > > But, the process has been stalled maybe due to some query limit.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Haifeng Zhang
> > > > > ___
> > > > > 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
> >
> 

Re: [Wiki-research-l] ❣Re: OMG it's true

[Nick Wilson (Quiddity)]

DO NOT click the link. Generic spam/phishing attempt.  (In case it
wasn't obvious to everyone :)

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Finding what is said about a topic in other articles

[Nick Wilson (Quiddity)]

On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Kerry Raymond  wrote:
> Indeed, the “Notable residents” section is one that would definitely benefit 
> from this tool. Is it just me or is there something actually broken with 
> “What links here?”. I try to suppress the transclusions (usually coming from 
> navboxes) but they are still displayed no matter whether I say to “Show/Hide 
> Transclusions” but a search of the article reveals there is no other link 
> present.
>
>

That existing feature works by hiding/showing where *the page itself*
is transcluded *into*. E.g.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:WikiFauna
vs 
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:WikiFauna&hidetrans=1


Making it work differently for incoming links that are coming from a
template, is a long-standing (and complicated to implement)
feature-request: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T14396

However, I see this comment by Izno suggests a partial (manual)
workaround, using an "insource:/\[\[FOO/" search.
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T14396#3246134
e.g. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&profile=all&search=insource%3A%2F\[\[Wikipedia%3AWikiGremlin%2F&fulltext=1
versus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:WikiGremlin
(I'm not sure why Izno's example also includes the "linksto:FOO"
string, but it appears to be redundant)

-- 
Quiddity

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Video demos of upcoming changes to edit review / RC patrol

[Nick Wilson (Quiddity)]

Hi Kerry,
The short answer is yes! the Collaboration Team is working now to extend
the new user interface so that it includes all the existing features on the
Recent Changes page, Watchlist and a few related pages—along with some new
tools users are requesting. We’re doing user testing right now of this
extended functionality (which includes things like Namespace filters, Tag
filters, User filters and, possibly, a Category filter).
When we have it all working the way it should, we plan to bring the new UI
and tools to Watchlist. This should happen in the next few months.

However, it is also already possible to add a "On [my] watchlist" filter or
highlight, to the results on the recent changes page.
E.g.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChanges?hidebots=1&hidecategorization=1&hideWikibase=1&watchlist=watched
or
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChanges?hidebots=1&hidecategorization=1&hideWikibase=1&watchlist=watched

Further details are in the main documentation at
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Edit_Review_Improvements
and pages linked in the side-navbox.

Feedback appreciated at
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Edit_Review_Improvements/New_filters_for_edit_review

Cheers,

On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 8:00 PM, Kerry Raymond 
wrote:

> I only watched the first video but I can see it is  useful addition to
> managing a large number of recent changes. Is there any plan to offer a
> similar service with watchlists?
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wiki-research-l [mailto:wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org]
> On Behalf Of Pine W
> Sent: Monday, 29 May 2017 7:42 AM
> To: wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org; Wikimedia Mailing List <
> wikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org>; Wiki Research-l  wikimedia.org>
> Subject: [Wiki-research-l] Video demos of upcoming changes to edit review
> / RC patrol
>
> I'd like to highlight two videos (some people may have already seen these)
> that demo upcoming changes to edit review / RC patrol that take advantage
> of ORES. I feel that that the changes look promising, and I hope that RC
> patrollers, Teahouse hosts, newbie adopters, and others will find that the
> changes make their work easier. I also hope for improved retention of
> good-faith contributors.
>
> 0. A succinct overview by Joe Matazzoni (WMF):
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ANew-
> feature_demo%E2%80%94smart_Recent_Changes_filtering_with_ORES.webm
>
> 1. A more extensive overview, also by Joe, including valuable context,
> from the WMF Metrics Meeting for May 2017:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAGwQdLyFb4 between 15:00 and 28:15.
>
> Pine
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
> _______
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>



-- 
Nick Wilson (Quiddity)
Community Liaison, 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] trip report: WWW2017 and Wikimedia Australia's visit

[Nick Wilson (Quiddity)]

(fixed link: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:LZia_(WMF)/Trip_reports )
I find these kinds of  highlights and summaries useful. Thanks, Leila!

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 6:06 PM, Leila Zia  wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I recently attended WWW2017 conference in Perth, Australia, and thanks to
> the generosity of Wikimedia Australia folks, got a chance to spend some
> time with them as well. I've written an informal trip report that will give
> you some pointers to an excerpt of what I did while in Perth and the talks
> and presentations I attended and learned from. If you are interested,
> please read it at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:LZia_(WMF
> )/Trip_reports.
>
> Best,
> Leila
>
> p.s. As I mentioned on top of the page linked above, I'm experimenting with
> whether there is some use for writing these reports. On the one hand, I'd
> like to share good presentations and papers that I learn from or the
> research experiences I have with the rest of you, on the other hand, I
> understand that many of you on this list attend quite a few conferences
> every year and this information may be redundant. I'll monitor that page
> for activity and will continue writing in the future if we see there is
> some use for that content. :)
>
> --
> Leila Zia
> Senior Research Scientist
> Wikimedia Foundation
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l



-- 
Nick Wilson (Quiddity)
Community Liaison, 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] Retention of Wikimedians for the long term

[Nick Wilson (Quiddity)]

Re:

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Kerry Raymond  wrote:
> I agree that many WikiProjects are moribund, but I was only thinking of
> those which are active as you need someone willing to assist in on-boarding.
> I think you could do it more frequently than annually, maybe around #edit
> milestones or my "developmental or interest" milestones. "Wow, Wilma, you've
> participated in 20 Article for Deletion votes, have you thought of becoming
> an administrator who closes these votes" (or some such). Or "Hey, Fred,
> you've edited 50 articles from WikiProject Architecture, are you interested
> to get more involved with this group?"
>
> Maybe just giving the project recruiters the tools to easily identify users
> with the desired characteristics would be enough (although some guidelines
> so they don't over-pester would probably be in order). They can then reach
> out and onboard folks however they like.
>
> The same tool could also be used just to praise the users for various
> milestones to motivate them. "Hey, Barney, congrats on 100 geology edits,
> would you like to have a progress bar on your user page so you can set a
> target and track how many geology edits you're making?". That is, try to
> motivate them by setting a goal which seems to reflect what topics they like
> to work on (could be based on categories and/or project tagging).
>
> Kerry

and

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 7:40 PM, David Goodman  wrote:
> what mattered to me was personal appreciation of my work--just as it did in
> my primary career. Not form notices, but  individual public comments that
> from people who showed that they understood. There is no way of automating
> that. The virtues of wikiprojects  (and local meetups) is of extending that
> appreciation more broadly and more intensely.
>

I think both can be motivational.

Personalized appreciation is obviously a much stronger motivator, but
there are inevitable (and large) coverage-gaps if we just rely on
goodwill and randomness to reach all editors deserving of feedback.

Automated feedback won't appeal to all editors (and will even annoy a
few), but the quantity of userboxes, and editcountitis statistics, and
page-creation-lists, and user-group-powers that appear on thousands of
userpages, suggests that Wikimedians can enjoy displaying their
statistics and affiliations and access-permissions and
expertise-areas, and knowing when they've hit a
large-round-number-of-edits-milestone, or page-creations, or
deletion-discussion-resolutions. Many of us might want to know more of
these kinds of details about ourselves!

At the far end of the automation-spectrum, but still within the realm
of serious-knowledge-communities, the StackOverflow system has a
variety of automated statistics and 'badges'. We wouldn't want (or be
able) to do most of that, for a variety of technical and social
reasons, but there's still some interesting ideas. Check out some
userpages in here:
* https://physics.stackexchange.com/users
* https://english.stackexchange.com/users
* https://math.stackexchange.com/users
etc.
These really are "our kind of people"! (It's near the top of "If I
could clone myself..." list of places I'd also like to spend more
time...)

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Engaging and learning from Japanese Wikipedia

[Nick Wilson (Quiddity)]

> > The topic of audiences was discussed at today's WMF Metrics and
>>>> > Activities meeting.
>>>> >
>>>> > Looking at https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/Sitemap.htm, and sorting by
>>>> > editors (5+ per million speakers), there are some language communities
>>>> > that appear to have high participation rates on their language's
>>>> > edition of Wikipedia, but I hear very little from them in meta
>>>> > discussions. Japanese Wikipedia comes to mind in particular, with its
>>>> > large number of primary + secondary language speakers. I'd be
>>>> > interested in learning more about what makes their community's edition
>>>> > of Wikipedia so successful in terms of a high proportion of Japanese
>>>> > speakers contributing to the site, that could be applied to other
>>>> > language editions.
>>>> >
>>>> > Could WMF direct more resources to studying the successes on Japanese
>>>> > Wikipedia, and how information about those successes could be applied
>>>> > to other language editions of Wikipedia?
>>>> >
>>>> > Pine
>>>> >
>>>> > ___
>>>> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>>> > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>>
>>>> ___
>>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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
>
>


-- 
Nick Wilson (Quiddity)
Community Liaison, 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

[Nick Wilson (Quiddity)]

Pine, the time-limited watchlist feature is in phab; see the many subtasks
of https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T8964 - AFAIK the primary work is
going on in the tasks listed in this workboard
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/expiring-watchlist-items/ - The WMDE
TCB team are already in contact with the WMF CommTech team.


Jan, The only research I know of is CommTech's survey earlier this year.
The results are at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Tech/Cross-wiki_watchlist#Survey_results

I don't believe there is any other research that is focused primarily on
how editors use watchlists in general. (I searched the meta Research:
namespace, and wikipapers.referata.com, and the first three pages of
scholar.google.com results. There was only 1 paper that seemed tangentially
related.[1]).

There is a linkdump (compilation of most major links, mostly phab tasks, in
no particular order) regarding watchlist wishes/discussions/tasks/etc, from
over the last 15 years, at
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Watchlist_wishlist
It needs better organization and more annotations, but should be helpful.

I believe the major back-end feature that will enable many additional
(widely- and long-desired) front-end features to be developed, is Multiple
Watchlists, a.k.a. Priority Watchlists, a.k.a. Watchlist Groups,
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T3492 - If I understand correctly, the
technical implementation that is currently being worked on for time-limited
watchlists, will be a step towards that [by adding a new "name" column to
the existing watchlist database tables, which can then be used in a variety
of ways]. (I might be wrong or out-of-date on this, though.)

>From deep within all those links, the most intriguing item from a UX
perspective, is probably the old smartwatchlist.js userscript at Enwiki.
See screenshots at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:UncleDouggie/smart_watchlist.js#Screenshots
See also the "Requested features" list near the top of the page.
It is/was a very powerful tool, that could be used in a variety of ways. It
was a bit buggy a few years ago (I haven't tried it recently), and the
author hasn't edited in many years. My only major criticism of it was the
inability to mass-categorize pages - they had to be categorized one-by-one
(unfeasible with my 9,000+ watchlisted pages). Many good ideas within.

Hope that helps!
Quiddity / Nick


[1] http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20150009483 -- See also the "Wiki
Accountability and Culture Shift" video linked at
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Darenwelsh#Videos for a presentation
with those slides.


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
>
>
-- 
Nick Wilson (Quiddity)
Community Liaison, 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] Quality issues

[Nick Wilson (Quiddity)]

Kerry,
Yes, it is possible to extract data with templates. A very simple
demonstration (and about my limit of template-wrangling...), is: go to
(random Queensland city article) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundaberg
and preview (don't save!) an edit with "{{#property:p1082}}" pasted in.
Property1082 is "population", and you'll see that it shows the 2014
population as specified at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q185404
(Bundaberg).
Also, notice those 3 tiny vertical squares next to each value at Wikidata:
http://i.imgur.com/8h6pGoQ.png Those are the "rank
" and only one of them can be
marked as "preferred"; in the Bundaberg population that is the most recent
2014 value. Hence it knows which of the many historical population numbers
to use.
There are a few live examples of data extraction in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Templates_using_data_from_Wikidata -
A good one is Template:Infobox_anatomy - e.g. if you check the wikitext at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin you'll see that no specific values are
given for 3 of the parameters that are showing in the infobox, they're all
coming from Wikidata.
At Enwiki, the place to request help with the creation of specific
templates, is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_templates

Currently, Wikidata advises only using data within other templates (such as
infoboxes and authority control boxes) and not in prose. This is also often
individually discussed at each community, e.g. Enwiki last discussed it
exhaustively in 2013, with relevant conclusions at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikidata#Inserting_Wikidata_values_into_Wikipedia_articles
- the talkpage there, would be another good place to ask for help or
clarification.

Adding info to Wikidata, is sadly not as simple as uploading a spreadsheet.
It is done one change at a time, though is often sped along via
bots/scripts/tools. I would suggest asking
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mattinbgn who added the population data
to Bundaberg how they did it
https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q185404&action=history - If that
editor doesn't know how to semi-automate the process for bulk data, then
ask for help at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Bot_requests (or
perhaps skim old requests

if so inclined).
The very short overview, is
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Data_donation

Hope that helps, or at least leads you towards clearer answers
Quiddity
(n.b. this is all with my volunteer hat (coming from the wrong email
account, but the one subscribed to this list) and might contain errors
(corrections appreciated). I just have an amateur enthusiasm for Wikidata,
and look forward to the time when infoboxes at all Wikipedias contain
up-to-date statistics with minimal redundant effort. :-)



On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Kerry Raymond 
wrote:
>
>  [...]
>
> However, I have a problem and I wonder if Wikidata can help with it. We
> have a census in Australia every 5 years and the population data from the
> most recent census (2011) is a standard item in every lede and infobox for
> any Australian place (town/suburb/locality) article on en.WP at least.
> However, maintaining that information is a massive tedious manual task. As
> a consequence, we still have lots of articles with 2006 census data while
> the 2016 census is coming at us like a freight train. The 2016 census will
> be the first one done primarily online (normally we fill out a long paper
> form and so there are months of data entry which delays the release of the
> data) and the data will be released around mid-2017. Now all this
> population data is available as spreadsheets under CC-BY license.
>
>
>
> My question is this. Can we update these spreadsheets into Wikidata and
> then create some kind of template on en.WP which can extract that data from
> Wikidata. I am thinking something like:
>
>
>
> {{CensusAUlatest|QLD|Childers}}
>
>
>
> Which we could embed in, say, the lede and which would produce something
> like
>
>
>
> In the 2016 Australian census, Childers reported a population of 12,345.
> ….
>
>
>
> Where the 12,345 (and probably some components of the citation) would be
> extracted from the 2016 spreadsheet entry for Childers. I’ve asked a few
> people if this is possible to automate in this way and I get the standard
> response “it might be but I don’t know enough about Wikidata”.
>
>
>
> We have a similar problem with climate data where again we can probably
> obtain spreadsheets with the data under a suitable license if we had a way
> to automatically incorporate it into articles within the current massive
> manual effort.
>
>
>
> Do you have any advice for us? I am sure we are not the only nation with
> this census problem, although I realise that in some countries the data may
> not be released in 

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

[Nick Wilson (Quiddity)]

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 12:25 AM, WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:

>  I thought if we had a "primary" badge or KPI system it was the content
> focussed ones and especially those related to Featured articles.


+1
Though as discussed, almost anything automated can be 'gamed' (in the
negative sense), and anything that requires human-discretion can too
(either by someone placing an unwarranted award, or by someone placing an
award that others might vociferously disagree with, e.g a diplomacy
barnstar).
Enwiki's existing profusion of barnstars and other award types are most
easily found via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Barnstar_pages


Editcountitis is seen by many as a bit of a joke. But there many others
> including articles created and length of service.


I'd love to have the output from various of the offwiki tools, available as
a "module/template" that I could optionally embed in my userpage at any
wiki.
E.g. the lists and barcharts, from places like:
http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/pages/
http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/
and numerical counts of (non-automatic) patrols and reviews that we've
contributed,
and other tweaked items from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User_toolbox



> I do like the idea of celebrating our most thanked editors but I don't
> think the necessary information is currently public.
>

The "Thank" itself is publicly logged, just not which edit it was sent for.
Fae collects monthly top 10 "Thankers" and "Thanked" on various projects,
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Faebot/thanks
IIRC, projects must opt-in, and individuals can opt-out.
(discussed in the thread starting here:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-February/076731.html
)


On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 11:33 PM, Kerry Raymond 
wrote:

> [...] Unfortunately our main interaction mechanism is writing on talk
> pages and it's hard to tell whether any contribution on a talk page is a
> "positive" behaviour or a negative one (short of some kind of sentiment
> analysis). This is an unfortunate consequence of using a wiki for a
> conversation rather than some more purpose-built tool.
>

Obligatory mention of Flow ;-)
All sorts of things should be possible with a structured system like this.
For example the number of topics that an editor "Marks as resolved" (and
isn't subsequently reverted). Perhaps/especially on specific pages such as
helpdesks. E.g. Frwiki has been experimenting with a mixture of their old
template system (in the "Summary" area) and Flow's "Resolved" status, at
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Forum_des_nouveaux/Flow - open
the ToC to see the resolved topics in a lighter text color, and skim down
the page looking at the blue/red templates (which denote: questions that
need more information from the original poster, and questions that aren't
appropriate for that page).


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&wpSearchFilter=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.

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

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

[Nick Wilson (Quiddity)]

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


-- 
Nick Wilson (Quiddity)
Community Liaison
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l