[Wiki-research-l] Re: Generation gap widens between admins and other editors on the English Wikipedia.

[Samuel Klein]

The iron law of gaps...

On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 5:44 PM The Cunctator  wrote:

> IMHO: The amount of jargon and legalistic booby traps to navigate now to
> become an admin is gargantuan, and there isn't a strong investment in a
> development ladder.


Yes.  More generally, a shift towards a Nupedia model (elaborate seven-step
processes, focus on quality, focus on knowing lots of precedent and not
making mistakes, spending more time justifying actions than making them) is
making sweeping, mopping, and bureaucracy generally more work, less fun,
and more exclusionary.

Perhaps asking everyone to adopt someone new, or sticking "provisional"
tags on a family of palette-swap roles that are Really Truly NBD
 We Mean It This Time, would help stave
off the iron law in a repeatable
 way//

SJ
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to wiki-research-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wiki-research-l] Re: [Announcement] A new formal collaboration in Research

[Samuel Klein]

My interest is in the subset of superusers who spend thousands of hours
caring about readability, who tend to gravitate towards entire projects
like wikikids or simple .  This is different from the value of
measuring readability of all articles across many languages.  But it points
to an area where there are many people eager to get to work, except they
lack a way to add a more-readable version of an article without arguing
with everyone else who might have other use cases in mind (some of which
may call for a less readable but more technically complet article).

We need both (a way to have multiple levels of readability of a single
article) and (a way to measure readability of any particular [version of
an] article) to bridge the gap you're addressing :)

On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 9:57 AM Martin Gerlach 
wrote:

> Hi Samuel,
> thanks for your interest in this project.
> Following up on your question, I want to share some additional background:
> This work is part of our updated research roadmap to address knowledge gaps
> [1], specifically, developing methods to measure different knowledge gaps
> [2]. We have identified readability as one of the gaps in the taxonomy of
> knowledge gaps [3]. However, we currently do not have the tools to
> systematically measure readability of Wikipedia articles across languages.
> Therefore, we would like to develop and validate a multilingual approach to
> measuring readability. Furthermore, the community wishlist from the
> previous year contained a proposal for a tool to surface readability scores
> [4]; while acknowledging that this is a difficult task to scale to all
> languages in Wikipedia.
> Let me know if you have further comments, suggestions, or questions --
> happy to discuss in more detail.
> Best,
> Martin
>
>
> [1]
>
> https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/04/21/a-new-research-roadmap-for-addressing-knowledge-gaps/
> [2]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Knowledge_Gaps_3_Years_On#Measure_Knowledge_Gaps
> [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Knowledge_Gaps_Index/Taxonomy
> [4]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Wishlist_Survey_2022/Bots_and_gadgets/Readability_scores_gadget
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 10:50 PM Samuel Klein  wrote:
>
> > Fantastic.  What a great teamn to work with.
> >
> > We definitely need multiple reading-levels for articles, which involves
> > some namespace & interface magic, and new norm settings around what is
> > possible.  Only a few language projects have managed to bolt this onto
> the
> > side of MediaWiki (though they include some excellent successes imo).
> >  Where does that fit into the research-practice-MW-WP roadmap?
> >
> > SJ
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 12:13 PM Martin Gerlach 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > The Research team at the Wikimedia Foundation has officially started a
> > new
> > > Formal Collaboration [1] with Indira Sen, Katrin Weller, and Mareike
> > > Wieland from GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences to work
> > > collaboratively on understanding perception of readability in Wikipedia
> > [2]
> > > as part of the Addressing Knowledge Gaps Program [3]. We are thankful
> to
> > > them for agreeing to spend their time and expertise on this project in
> > the
> > > coming year.
> > >
> > > Here are a few pieces of information about this collaboration that we
> > would
> > > like to share with you:
> > > * We aim to keep the research documentation for this project in the
> > > corresponding research page on meta [2].
> > > * Research tasks are hard to break down and track in task-tracking
> > systems.
> > > This being said, the page on meta is linked to an Epic level
> Phabricator
> > > task and all tasks related to this project that can be captured on
> > > Phabricator will be captured under here [4].
> > > * I act as the point of contact for this research in the Wikimedia
> > > Foundation. Please feel free to reach out to me (directly, if it cannot
> > be
> > > shared publicly) if you have comments or questions about the project.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Martin
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Formal_collaborations
> > > [2]
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Understanding_perception_of_readability_in_Wikipedia
> > > [3] https://research.wikimedia.org/knowledge-gaps.html
> > > [4] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T325815
> > >
> > > --
> > > Martin Gerlac

[Wiki-research-l] Re: [Announcement] A new formal collaboration in Research

[Samuel Klein]

Fantastic.  What a great teamn to work with.

We definitely need multiple reading-levels for articles, which involves
some namespace & interface magic, and new norm settings around what is
possible.  Only a few language projects have managed to bolt this onto the
side of MediaWiki (though they include some excellent successes imo).
 Where does that fit into the research-practice-MW-WP roadmap?

SJ

On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 12:13 PM Martin Gerlach 
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> The Research team at the Wikimedia Foundation has officially started a new
> Formal Collaboration [1] with Indira Sen, Katrin Weller, and Mareike
> Wieland from GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences to work
> collaboratively on understanding perception of readability in Wikipedia [2]
> as part of the Addressing Knowledge Gaps Program [3]. We are thankful to
> them for agreeing to spend their time and expertise on this project in the
> coming year.
>
> Here are a few pieces of information about this collaboration that we would
> like to share with you:
> * We aim to keep the research documentation for this project in the
> corresponding research page on meta [2].
> * Research tasks are hard to break down and track in task-tracking systems.
> This being said, the page on meta is linked to an Epic level Phabricator
> task and all tasks related to this project that can be captured on
> Phabricator will be captured under here [4].
> * I act as the point of contact for this research in the Wikimedia
> Foundation. Please feel free to reach out to me (directly, if it cannot be
> shared publicly) if you have comments or questions about the project.
>
> Best,
> Martin
>
> [1]
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Formal_collaborations
> [2]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Understanding_perception_of_readability_in_Wikipedia
> [3] https://research.wikimedia.org/knowledge-gaps.html
> [4] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T325815
>
> --
> Martin Gerlach (he/him) | Senior Research Scientist | Wikimedia Foundation
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to wiki-research-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>


-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to wiki-research-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

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

[Samuel Klein]

Much research lately studies current communities of X (say, Wikipedians),
as something like a finite-game within the relatively stable and
self-limiting framework set up by X once it became an institution (say, the
post-2007 framework of WP and sibling projects).

I haven't seen as much research into the infinite-game aspect: the
generation and seeding of projects with self-governing wiki nature
<https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki-Prinzip>. Offline examples might
include large-scale short-notice events, incl. some festivals, disaster
relief, mass migration + rebuilding.

Scaling often involves building tools, but seeing the community and its
work tools through the lens of whatever tools persist,  in communities that
survive long enough to be studied, can have two levels of survivorship bias
built in.  There may be a lot of subcommunities, mindsets, and tools that
are essential to pulling off a broad collaboration, but are just a phase.
One framework is to ground observations of a surviving group by
studying the many similar efforts that fail
<https://mako.cc/academic/hill-almost_wikipedia-DRAFT.pdf>.

I wonder if there are good examples of Stu's approach or others applied to
the genesis of such communities. Or communities that explicitly try to seed
and propagate new projects like them, which are then studied from the
start.

//S



On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 11:28 AM Andrew Green  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I hope this is the right place to ask this question!
>
> I was wondering if folks who are doing (or are interested in) research
> about Wikipedia might like to share texts that they feel best describe
> the general research frameworks they use (or might like to use).
>
> I'd love to hear about any texts you like, regardless of format
> (textbook, paper, general reference, blog post, etc.).
>
> It seems a lot of work about Wikipedia uses approaches from
> Computational Social Science. The main references I have for that are
> [1] and [2].
>
> I'm especially interested in links between Computational Social Science
> and frameworks from more traditional social sciences and cognitive science.
>
> Many thanks in advance! :) Cheers,
> Andrew
>
> [1] Cioffi-Revilla, C. (2017) /Introduction to Computational Social
> Science. Principles and Applications. Second Edition./ Cham,
> Switzerland: Springer.
>
> [2] Melnik, R. (ed.) (2015)/Mathematical and Computational Modeling.
> With Applications in Natural and Social Sciences, Engineering, and the
> Arts/. Hoboken, U.S.A.: Wiley.
>
> --
> Andrew Green (he/him)
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to wiki-research-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>


-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to wiki-research-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wiki-research-l] [OW] fixing performance regressions before they happen

[Samuel Klein]

An interesting post from the Netflix team, workflow and analysis may be of
general interest. I'm not sure what research of this sort we have on W*
performance benchmarks over time ~~

https://netflixtechblog.com/fixing-performance-regressions-before-they-happen-eab2602b86fe

🌍🌏🌎🌑
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to wiki-research-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wiki-research-l] Re: The Wikimedia Foundation Research Award of the Year - Call for Nominations

[Samuel Klein]

My post was sharded to just the wikidata list, copying the others :)

On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 12:59 PM Patricio Lorente <
patricio.lore...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thank you, SJ. I fully agree with your recommendations.
>
> El jue, 13 ene 2022 a las 14:55, Samuel Klein ()
> escribió:
>
>> Kay, bless your heart.
>> Galder, Gereon, Xavi: I would be *particularly* interested in research
>> in other languages, since it's harder for me to run across that in my
>> regular feeds. (that may also be true for some of the reviewers :) but
>> they're also lang and time limited)
>>
>> Recommendation that might conceivably be implemented for this cycle:
>>  -- Update "can submit" to "encouraged to submit" in any languages
>>  -- If in a language other than {core langs} <-- which may be only
>> English this year, ask submitters to recommend a reviewer who can share a
>> review of the work in English
>>  -- To Andy's point, confirm the license of the research is one that is
>> open (so that it can be independently translated)
>>  -- Have a two stage award: the first stage, based on a quick review for
>> significance and interest, identifies finalists which are, if not already
>> in one of the {core langs}, translated into one of them. (at least in
>> abstract + summary; we facilitate this translation by supporting /
>> sponsoring community translation; it's a universal benefit for researchers
>> around the world)
>>  -- Second stage is as currently imagined: review of finalist papers in
>> {core langs}.
>>
>> <3.  SJ
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 10:27 PM KAY WOODING via Wikidata <
>> wikid...@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>
>>>  I SPEAK ENGLISH  THABKS I APPRECIATE IT  JESUS LOVES YIU I LOVE YOU GOD
>>> BLESS YOU  HAVE A BLESSED DAY
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, January 12, 2022, 09:55:21 PM EST, Leila Zia <
>>> l...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> We gave the option of accepting nominations in more languages some
>>> more thought. I want to be very honest: I don't have a good solution
>>> to accommodate more languages in this cycle. We considered the option
>>> of allowing/encouraging nominations in other languages, and not doing
>>> the broader search we do in English in those languages. However, even
>>> this option is not really guaranteed to work because we consider
>>> "scholarly publications" which can be papers of a few pages or books
>>> that can be hundreds of pages. We cannot guarantee that we can
>>> translate the scholarly publication (independent of its length)
>>> in-time for the review.
>>>
>>> Given the above, my suggestion to you is that if you know of a
>>> scholarly publication that is in another language than English and you
>>> think we should consider it, still nominate it. We will consider it,
>>> even if I can't guarantee that we review it.
>>>
>>> I'm sorry that I am not able to offer a better solution for this
>>> cycle. We will continue thinking about this point for the future
>>> cycles.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Leila
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 12:46 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
>>>  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hi Leila,
>>> > I have read it, that's why I'm confused.
>>> > 
>>> > From: Leila Zia 
>>> > Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 9:40 PM
>>> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
>>> > Cc: wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org <
>>> wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>; Discussion list for the Wikidata
>>> project. 
>>> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: [Wiki-research-l] Re: The Wikimedia
>>> Foundation Research Award of the Year - Call for Nominations
>>> >
>>> > Hi Galder,
>>> >
>>> > Please see below.
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 12:26 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
>>> >  wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > Thanks, Leila, for answering the question raised.
>>> >
>>> > Anytime.
>>> >
>>> > > I'm a bit confused with this, I supposed that the Wikimedia
>>> Foundation Research Award was an initiative from the Research team of the
>>> WMF (https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research), but I read in
>>> your answer that "WikiResearch is primarily in English and about researc

[Wiki-research-l] Re: [Events] Adding context to fact-checking and role of Wikipedia as a vector for credible information

[Samuel Klein]

Looks amazing; thanks for sharing!

On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 4:34 PM Ahmed Medien  wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> *This is an event in Spanish*
>
> I wanted to share with you an event organized with Wikimedians from Mexico,
> Luis Alvaz and Jose Flores as well as a journalist from Ecuador Chequa
> - Alliwa Pazmiño.
>
> *When*
> Friday, May 28th, 12 pm ET
>
> *Where*
> Zoom: This is the link to register for the event:
> https://forms.gle/rwDwoThLZ6tduyxv8
>
> *What is it*
> The event brings together professionals from the news world and wiki
> movement to talk about challenges within current news and online
> information ecosystem in "Latin America" (countries represented here are
> Ecuador and Mexico) as well as the role of Wikipedia as a vector for
> credible, verified, fact-checked information to mass audiences in these
> crucial times (Covid, elections, heightened partisanship).
>
>
> *You can find speakers info and description of the event
> here: https://bit.ly/3uOm57T <https://bit.ly/3uOm57T>*
>
> As always, I welcome and appreciate the participation from Wikipedians to
> add to the talking points during the event, challenge them. This event is
> going to be a lightening presentations style event + Q&A
>
> Best,
>
> A
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to wiki-research-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>


-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to wiki-research-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Research Showcase] March 17: Curiosity

[Samuel Klein]

I was *so* hoping this was going to be about the Machine Queen of Mars
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curiosity_(rover)>.
But this looks amazing too...

On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 3:50 PM Janna Layton  wrote:

> In this showcase, Prof. Danielle Bassett will present recent work studying
> individual and collective curiosity as network building processes using
> Wikipedia.
>
> Date/Time: March 17, 16:30 UTC (9:30am PT/12:30pm ET/17:30pm CET)
> Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jw2s_Y4J2tI
>
> Speaker: Danielle Bassett (University of Pennsylvania)
>
> Title: The curious human
>
> Abstract: The human mind is curious. It is strange, remarkable, and
> mystifying; it is eager, probing, questioning. Despite its pervasiveness
> and its relevance for our well-being, scientific studies of human curiosity
> that bridge both the organ of curiosity and the object of curiosity remain
> in their infancy. In this talk, I will integrate historical, philosophical,
> and psychological perspectives with techniques from applied mathematics and
> statistical physics to study individual and collective curiosity. In the
> former, I will evaluate how humans walk on the knowledge network of
> Wikipedia during unconstrained browsing. In doing so, we will capture
> idiosyncratic forms of curiosity that span multiple millennia, cultures,
> languages, and timescales. In the latter, I will consider the fruition of
> collective curiosity in the building of scientific knowledge as encoded in
> Wikipedia. Throughout, I will make a case for the position that individual
> and collective curiosity are both network building processes, providing a
> connective counterpoint to the common acquisitional account of curiosity in
> humans.
>
> Related papers:
>
> Hunters, busybodies, and the knowledge network building associated with
> curiosity. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/undy4
>
> The network structure of scientific revolutions.
> http://arxiv.org/abs/2010.08381
>
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Showcase#March_2021
>
> --
> Janna Layton (she/her)
> Administrative Associate - Product & Technology
> Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: wikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>


-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Knowledge Graphs in Action: Oct 6, 2020

[Samuel Klein]

That looks awesome Sebastian, thanks for sharing.

🌍🌏🌎🌑

On Wed., Jul. 29, 2020, 5:30 a.m. Sebastian Hellmann, <
pr-a...@informatik.uni-leipzig.de> wrote:

> Apologies for cross-posting
>
> Dear all,
> Due to current circumstances, the SEMANTiCS Onsite Conference 2020 had,
> unfortunately, to be postponed till September 2021. To bridge the gap
> until 2021, DBpedia, the Platform Linked Data Netherlands (PLDN) and
> EuroSDR will organize a SEMANTiCS satellite event online, on October 6,
> 2020. We set up an exciting themed program around ‘Knowledge Graphs in
> Action: DBpedia, Linked Geodata and Geo-information Integration’. This
> new event is a combination of two already existing ones: the DBpedia
> Community Meeting, which is regularly held as part of the SEMANTiCS, and
> the annual Spatial Linked Data conference organised by EuroSDR and PLDN.
> We fused both together and as a bonus, we added a track about
> Geo-information Integration hosted by EuroSDR. For the joint opening
> session, we recruited four amazing keynote speakers to kick the event off.
>
> # Quick Facts
> - Web URL:https://wiki.dbpedia.org/meetings/KnowledgeGraphsInAction
> - When: October 6, 2020
> - Where: The conference will take place fully online.
>
> # Highlights
> - Hackathon (starts 2 weeks earlier)
> - Keynote by Carsten Hoyer-Klick, German Aerospace Center
> - Keynote by Marinos Kavouras, National Technical University of Athens
> (NTUA)
> - Keynote by Peter Mooney, Maynooth University
> - Keynote by Krzysztof Janowicz, University of California
> - Spatial Linked Data Country Session
> - DBpedia Chapter Session
> - Self Service GIS Session
> - DBpedia Member Showcase Session
>
> # Registration
> - Attending the conference is free. Registration is required though.
> Please register here to be part of the meeting:
> https://wiki.dbpedia.org/meetings/KnowledgeGraphsInAction
>
> # Program
> - Please check the schedule for the upcoming Knowledge Graphs in Action
> event here: https://wiki.dbpedia.org/meetings/KnowledgeGraphsInAction
>
> # Organisation
> - Benedicte Bucher, University Gustave Eiffel, IGN, EuroSDR
> - Erwin Folmer, Kadaster, University of Twente, Platform Linked Data
> Netherlands
> - Rob Lemmens, University of Twente
> - Sebastian Hellmann, AKSW/KILT, DBpedia Association
> - Julia Holze, InfAI, DBpedia Association
> - Joep Crompvoets, KU Leuven
> - Peter Mooney, Maynooth University
>
> With kind regards,
>
> The KGiA Organization Team
>
>
> ___
> 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] 3rd CfP: SEMANTiCS 2020 EU || Sep 7 - 10, 2020 || Amsterdam, The Netherlands

[Samuel Klein]

iled Call for Poster and Demos papers is available
> online.
>
> == Industry and Use Case Track ==
> Focusing strongly on industry needs and ground breaking technology
> trends SEMANTICS invites presentations on enterprise solutions that deal
> with semantic processing of data and/or information. A special focus of
> Semantics 2019 will be on the convergence of machine learning techniques
> and knowledge graphs. Additional topics of interest are Enterprise
> Knowledge Graphs, Semantic AI & Machine Learning, Enterprise Data
> Integration, Linked Data & Data Publishing, Semantic Search,
> Recommendation Services, Thesaurus and/or Ontology Management, Text
> Mining, Data Mining and any related fields. All submissions should have
> a strong focus on real-world applications beyond the prototypical stage
> and demonstrate the power of semantic systems!
>
> = Important Dates:
> * Paper Submission Deadline:May 25, 2020 (11:59
> pm,Hawaii time)
> * Notification of Acceptance: June 15, 2020 (11:59 pm,
> Hawaii time)
> * Camera-Ready Presentation: August 24, 2020 (11:59
> pm, Hawaii time)
>
> Submit your presentations here:
> http://2020-eu.semantics.cc/submission-industry-presentations
>
> == Workshops and Tutorials ==
> Workshops and Tutorials at SEMANTiCS 2018 allow your organisation or
> project to advance and promote your topics and gain increased
> visibility. The workshops and tutorials will provide a forum for
> presenting widely recognised contributions and findings to a diverse and
> knowledgeable community. Furthermore, the event can be used as a
> dissemination activity in the scope of large research projects or as a
> closed format for research and commercial project consortia meetings.
>
> = Important Dates for Workshops:
> * Proposals  WS Deadline:March 23, 2020 (11:59 pm,
> Hawaii time)
> * Notification of Acceptance: April 20, 2020 (11:59 pm,
> Hawaii time)
>
>
> = Important Dates for Tutorials (and other meetings, e.g. seminars,
> show-cases, etc., without call for papers):
> * Proposals  Tutorial Deadline:May 11, 2020 (11:59 pm,
> Hawaii time)
> * Notification of Acceptance: June 01, 2020 (11:59
> pm, Hawaii time)
>
> == Special Calls ==
> Special calls or sub-topics are dedicated towards specific topics that
> are of special interest to the SEMANTiCS community. In case we receive a
> sufficient amount of high quality submissions these topics will become
> special tracks within the conference program. For 2020 SEMANTiCS
> Amsterdam encourages submissions to the following sub-topics:
>
> * Special Sub-Topic: Digital Humanities and Cultural Heritage
> * Special Sub-Topic: LegalTech
> * Special Sub-Topic: Blockchain and Semantics
>
> Each sub-topic is managed by a distinct committee and encourages
> submissions from the scientific or industrial domain. Scientific
> submissions will undergo a thorough review process and will be published
> in the conference proceedings in case of acceptance. Industrial
> submissions will be evaluated and selected according to the quality
> criteria of the industry track. We are looking forward to your submissions!
>
> = Read a detailed description of all available calls online:
> https://2020-eu.semantics.cc/calls
>
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>


-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Some changes to this mailing list

[Samuel Klein]

or example, community
> > > > organizers should feel welcome to ask research-related questions on
> > > > this list.
> > > >
> > > > ==What process did I follow for this change?==
> > > > I wrote my proposed changes in an etherpad and sent it to 10 people.
> > > > These folks include the two other admins of this list, a couple of
> > > > other Research folks from WMF, a few folks from the Wikimedia
> Research
> > > > community, and two editors from the community who are active in the
> > > > research space. I heard back from 3 of these folks with thumbs up and
> > > > areas for improvement. I incorporated all the suggestions I received.
> > > >
> > > > ==What if you have suggestions for improvements?==
> > > > Sure. Bring them up on this thread or privately. Please note that I
> > > > will be in Wikidata Conference [2] and after that in our annual
> > > > Research Offsite and may not be able to respond to you until
> > > > 2019-11-01.
> > > >
> > > > ==Where can I see the updated description?==
> > > > Please go to
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > > > to review it.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Leila
> > > >
> > > > [1] Read the previous version of the description below:
> > > >
> > > > The purpose of this mailing list is to discuss scientific research
> > > > into the content and the communities of the Wikimedia projects:
> > > > Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wikinews,
> > > > Wikispecies, and Wikimedia Commons, Meta-Wiki.
> > > >
> > > > Research into the technology of Wikimedia, MediaWiki, should
> primarily
> > > > be discussed on  > > > href="http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> > > > ">wikitech-l
> > > > instead. For content or community research projects with a strong
> > > > technological component, cross-posting to both lists may be
> advisable.
> > > >
> > > > Please note that only people who are actively involved in research on
> > > > Wikimedia projects should post to this list. Typical on-topic posts
> > > > include:
> > > >
> > > > announcement of a new research project
> > > > discussions of methodology
> > > > questions and answers about related projects
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > > Mailing list traffic should be kept at a reasonably low level. The
> > > > list is softly moderated, and individuals posting off-topic material
> > > > repeatedly may be removed.
> > > >
> > > > This list is not directly associated with the  > > > href="http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research_Network
> > ">Wikimedia
> > > > Research Network, though members of the Network are welcome to
> > > > post here if they are involved in research projects relating to
> > > > content or community. Internal Wikimedia matters, discussions of new
> > > > projects and similar threads should be kept off the list.
> > > >
> > > > [2] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikidataCon_2019
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Leila Zia
> > > > Principal Research Scientist, Head of Research
> > > > Wikimedia Foundation
> > > >
> > > > ___
> > > > 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
>


-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] No. of articles deleted over time

[Samuel Klein]

Since but 26122 has been fixed, any reason not to use the deletion log
instead?

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:27 AM Aaron Halfaker 
wrote:

> Here's a related bit of work:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_article_creation
>
> In this research project, I used a mix of both the deletion log and the
> archive table to get a sense for when pages were being deleted.
>
> Ultimately, I found that the easiest deletion event to operationalize was
> to look at the most recent ar_timestamp for a page in the archive table.
>  I could only go back to 2008 with this metric because the archive table
> didn't exist before then.
>
> The archive table is available in quarry.  See
> https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/38414 for an example query that gets the
> timestamp of an article's last revision.
>
> The logging table is also in quarry.  See
> https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/38415 for an example query that gets
> deletion events.
>
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 2:51 PM Haifeng Zhang 
> wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > Is there an easy way to get the number of articles deleted over time
> > (e.g., month) in Wikipedia?
> >
> > Can I use Quarry? What tables should I use?
> >
> >
> > 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
>


-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] New paper - Indigenous knowledge on Wikipedia

[Samuel Klein]

On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 10:11 PM Ocean Power 
wrote:

> What about Australian indigenous songs that trace the path of songlines
> that both document collective history and folk knowledge and also
> rhythmically document land contours and other landmarks as a
> map/timeline/travel guide and often compile folkloric and secondary and
> primary knowledge over generations? I'm curious if you think these function
> in some ways as tertiary sources which, at least according to the wiki,
> include "travel guides, field guides, and almanacs." I'm out of my depth
> but enjoying the back and forth here.
>

Hello :)  Sounds like a tertiary source to me, whatever the format.   I
would say instructional, historical, and cataloging stories + songs are
traditional tertiary sources.  As are the maintainers of legal precedent
and local data records.

There are also a few independent dimensions where oral and written
histories tend to differ, which are sometimes confused.  Three at play here:

* *Format*: Seen (video) vs. Spoken (audio) vs. written (text).
   Video or audio are sometimes considered more authentic than text for a
primary source.
* *Verifiability*: Contemporaneously recorded in a lasting medium, vs.
remembered + retransmitted through the memory of recipients
* *Closeness to observation*:  Primary observation / Secondary analysis /
Tertiary compilation
A town elder remembering the town's history is primary; when I develop
my own history based on it (w/o direct experience) and tell it to you, that
is secondary; if you catalog different versions of town histories in an
epic song, that's tertiary (even as your performance of it is a primary
source for your singing style!)

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] New paper - Indigenous knowledge on Wikipedia

[Samuel Klein]

r she knows and has been
> trained
> >>>> for.
> >>>>
> >>>> Casemajor N., Gentelet K., Coocoo C. (2019), « Openness, Inclusion and
> >>>> Self-Affirmation: Indigenous knowledge in Open Knowledge Projects »,
> >>>> *Journal
> >>>> of Peer Production*, no13, pp. 1-20.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> More info about the Atikamekw Wikipetcia project and the involvement
> >>>> of Wikimedia Canada:
> >>>>
> >>>> https://ca.wikimedia.org/…/Atikamekw_knowledge,_culture_and…
> >>>> <
> >>>>
> >>
> https://ca.wikimedia.org/wiki/Atikamekw_knowledge,_culture_and_language_in_Wikimedia_projects?fbclid=IwAR1PynlNUrZcRSIIu9WwcKhp0QjE_UqPz2O8_KNZxnsrTGQYKoLyOMuvh10
> >>>>>
> >>>> ___
> >>>> 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
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jan Dittrich
> > UX Design/ Research
> >
> > Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> > Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
> > https://wikimedia.de
> >
> > Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der
> Menschheit
> > teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
> > https://spenden.wikimedia.de
> >
> > 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
>


-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

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

[Samuel Klein]

How about ideas focused on building entire new wikis that support and
encourage new communities of contributors?

On Mon., May 13, 2019, 3:00 p.m. Jonathan Morgan, 
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> The Community Growth
>  space at
> Wikimania 2019 is now accepting submissions! The deadline for submission
>  is June 1. See
> below for submission topics and session formats.
>
>
> In the Community Growth space, we will come together for discussions,
> presentations, and workshops that address these questions:
>
>
>-
>
>What is and is not working around attracting and retaining newcomers?
>-
>
>How should Wikimedia activities evolve to help communities grow and
>flourish?
>-
>
>How should our technology and culture evolve to help new populations to
>come online, participate and become community members?
>
>
> *Recommended topics. *While proposals related to all aspects of community
> growth and newcomer experience are welcome, organizing team is particularly
> interested in proposals related to:
>
>
>-
>
>Research on recruitment, activation and retention.
>-
>
>Technological approaches
>-
>
>On- and off-wiki engagement strategies
>-
>
>Supporting diversity and cross-cultural newcomer experiences
>-
>
>Lessons learned from beyond Wikimedia, and
>-
>
>The future of newcomers and editing
>
>
> If you are interested in seeing presentations around additional topics, but
> do not plan to submit a proposal, you can suggest additional topics here
> <
> https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2019:Community_Growth#Topics_suggested_by_community_members
> >.
>
>
> *Types of session.* We prefer sessions that are participatory, interactive,
> promote conversations, and give a voice to parts of our movement that are
> heard less often. We welcome the following session formats:
>
>
>-
>
>Roundtable discussion
>-
>
>Panel discussion
>-
>
>Lightning talk
>-
>
>Working session
>-
>
>Teaching session
>-
>
>Conference presentation
>
>
> *Poster submissions.* Posters are also a good way to introduce a topic, or
> show some results of an action. Please consider submitting one
> !
>
>
> More information about the Community Growth space, topics, and submission
> formats is available on the proposal page
> .
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Jonathan Morgan
>
> On behalf of the Community Growth leadership team
>
> --
> Jonathan T. Morgan
> Senior Design Researcher
> Wikimedia Foundation
> User:Jmorgan (WMF) 
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Transferring CC-BY scientific literature into WP

[Samuel Klein]

A wikisource toolchain for importing articles would be wonderful.
There is no equivalent place for public comments, categorization, and dense
internal linking across such texts.

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 2:36 PM Federico Leva (Nemo) 
wrote:

> Alexandre Hocquet, 17/04/19 20:40:
> > My point is : as it can be imagined that the number of CC-BY scientific
> > papers will likely sky-rocket in the next years, would not it be
> > relevant to try to organise "CC-BY scientific papers" driven edit-a-thons
>
> Importing text and images from freely licensed papers to Wikimedia wikis
> is a common practice. Several initiatives exist to further spread it.
> Wikimedia entities have stressed the importance of "libre open access"
> (free licenses) for over a decade now.
>
> When we rewrote the terms of use in 2009, we made sure to make such
> imports easy:
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use#7c>
>
> Many local explanations and tools also exist, like:
> <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copying_text_from_other_sources#Can_I_copy_from_open_license_or_public_domain_sources
> ?>
>
> The biggest import happened on Wikimedia Commons:
> <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Open_Access_Media_Importer_Bot>
>
> Larger imports of text have been discussed several times, mostly for
> Wikisource:
> <
> https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:WikiProject_Open_Access/Programmatic_import_from_PubMed_Central/Draft_RfC
> >
>
> Federico
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>


-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [wikicite-discuss] Leaving the Wikimedia Foundation, staying on the wikis

[Samuel Klein]

Dario -- what news!  And how close that seems to your recent pushing of us
all.
How lucky the projects have been to have you building a research
constellation, for these many years.

Leila, congrats + warm wishes in your new role.

With wikilove and taxonometrics,
SJ

On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 4:56 PM Dario Taraborelli <
dtarabore...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> I've got some personal news to share.
>
> After 8 years with Wikimedia, I have decided to leave the Foundation to
> take up a new role focused on open science. This has been a difficult
> decision but an opportunity arose and I am excited to be moving on to an
> area that’s been so close to my heart for years.
>
> Serving the movement as part of the Research team at WMF has been, and
> will definitely be, the most important gig in my life. I leave a team of
> ridiculously talented and fun people that I can’t possibly imagine not
> spending all of my days with, as well many collaborators and friends in the
> community who have I worked alongside. I am proud and thankful to have been
> part of this journey with you all. With my departure, Leila Zia is taking
> the lead of Research at WMF, and you all couldn't be in better hands.
>
> In March, I’ll be joining CZI Science—a philanthropy based in the Bay
> Area—to help build their portfolio of open science programs and technology.
> I'll continue to be an ally on the same fights in my new role.
>
> Other than that, I look forward to returning to full volunteer mode. I
> started editing English Wikipedia in 2004, working on bloody chapters in
> the history of London <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smithfield,_London>; 
> hypothetical
> astronomy <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_Nine>; unsung heroes
> among women in science <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Potter>; and
> of course natural
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_South_Napa_earthquake>, technical
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2016_Dyn_cyberattack> and political
> disasters
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections>.
> I’ve also developed an embarrassing addiction to Wikidata, and you’ll
> continue seeing me around hacking those instances of Q16521
> <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q16521> for a little while.
>
> I hope our paths cross once again in the future.
>
> Best,
>
> Dario
>
>
> --
>
> *Dario Taraborelli  *Director, Head of Research, Wikimedia Foundation
> research.wikimedia.org • nitens.org • @readermeter
> <http://twitter.com/readermeter>
>
> --
> Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiCite
> Twitter: https://twitter.com/wikicite
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "wikicite-discuss" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to wikicite-discuss+unsubscr...@wikimedia.org.
>


-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] New viz.: Wikipedias, participation per language

[Samuel Klein]

Do we have data on "# of speakers of language X who don't speak a
better-covered lang as a secondary language"?

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 4:21 PM Samuel Klein  wrote:

> How wonderful.   Thank you !  Maybe some of this could show up in a tiny
> sidebar on hatnote, too.
>
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 4:04 PM Erik Zachte  wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I just published a new visualization: Wikipedias, compared by
>> participation
>> per language (= active editors per million speakers)
>>
>> There are several pages,
>>
>> one for a global overview
>>
>> https://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/participation/d3_participation_global.html
>>
>> one with breakdown by continent
>>
>> https://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/participation/d3_participation_continent.html
>>
>> You can also zoom in on one continent, by clicking on it
>>
>> Any feedback is welcome.
>>
>> Erik Zachte
>> _______
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>
>
> --
> Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
>


-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] New viz.: Wikipedias, participation per language

[Samuel Klein]

How wonderful.   Thank you !  Maybe some of this could show up in a tiny
sidebar on hatnote, too.

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 4:04 PM Erik Zachte  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I just published a new visualization: Wikipedias, compared by participation
> per language (= active editors per million speakers)
>
> There are several pages,
>
> one for a global overview
>
> https://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/participation/d3_participation_global.html
>
> one with breakdown by continent
>
> https://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/participation/d3_participation_continent.html
>
> You can also zoom in on one continent, by clicking on it
>
> Any feedback is welcome.
>
> Erik Zachte
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>


-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Reader use of Wikipedia and Commons categories

[Samuel Klein]

User of Interlang links and categories varies strongly with placement on
the page. we used to be able to see this now clearly with the multiple
popular skins. today we can perhaps see this best with the multiple apps
and viewers. on wp mobile, surprisingly, readers don't use categories at
all!

More seriously: this is a tremendously useful and underutilized slice of
wiki knowledge, like the quality and completeness categories, which deserve
to be made more visible.

@kerry I expect it isn't for edit count, it is for fixing a fast of
knowledge that those editors find critically important (as I do!). yes we
need something like petscan and intersection to be a standard aspect of on
wiki search: this is precisely the sorry of use that good clean
categorisation is good for!

categorically yours,
sj


On Thu 24 May, 2018, 6:38 PM Kerry Raymond,  wrote:

> I do outreach including training. From that, I am inclined to agree that
> readers don’t use categories. People who come to edit training are
> (unsurprisingly) generally already keen readers of Wikipedia, but
> categories seem to be something they first learn about in edit training.
> Indeed, one of my outreach offerings is just a talk about Wikipedia, which
> includes tips for getting more out of the reader experience, like
> categories, What Links Here, and lots of thing that are in plain view on
> the standard desktop interface but people aren't looking there.
>
> Also many categories exist in parallel with List-of articles and navboxes,
> which do more-or-less-but-not-exactly the same thing. It may be that
> readers are more likely to stumble on the lists or see the navbox entries
> (particularly if the navbox renders open). But all in all, I still think
> most readers enter Wikipedia via search engines and then progress further
> through Wikipedia by link clicking and using the Wikipedia search box as
> their principal navigation tools.
>
> Editors use categories principally to increase their edit count (cynical
> but it's hard to think otherwise given what I see on my watchlist); there's
> an awful lot of messing about with categories for what seems to be very
> little benefit to the reader (especially as readers don't seem to use
> them). And with a lack of obvious ways to intersect categories (petscan is
> wonderful but neither readers nor most editor know about it) an leads to
> the never-ending creation of cross-categorisation like
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:19th-century_Australian_women_writers
>
> which is pretty clearly the intersection of 4 category trees that probably
> should be independent: nationality, sex, occupation, time frame. Sooner or
> later it will inevitably be further subcategorised into
>
> 1870s British-born-Australian cis-women poets
>
> First-Monday-in-the-month Indian-born Far-North-Queensland
> cis-women-with-male-pseudonym romantic-sonnet-poets :-)
>
> Obviously categories do have some uses to editors. If you have a source
> that provides you with some information about some aspect of a group of
> topics, it can be useful to work your way through each of the entries in
> the category updating it accordingly.
>
> Machines. Yes, absolutely. I use AWB and doing things across a category
> (and the recursive closure of a category) is my primary use-case for AWB.
> My second use-case for AWB I use a template-use (template/infobox use is a
> de-facto category and indeed is a third thing that often parallels a
> category but unlike lists and navboxes, this form is invisible to the
> reader).
>
> With Commons, again, I don't think readers go there, most haven't even
> heard of it. It's mainly editors at work there and I think they do use
> categories. The category structure seems to grow there more organically.
> There is not the constant "let's rename this category worldwide" or the
> same level of cross-categorisation on Commons that I see on en.Wikipedia.
>
> I note that while we cannot know who is using categories, we can still get
> page count stats for the category itself. These tend to be close to
> 0-per-day for a lot of categories (e.g. Town halls in Queensland). Even a
> category that one might think has much greater interest get relatively low
> numbers, e.g. "Presidents of the United States" gets 26-per-day views on
> average. This compares with 37K daily average for the Donald Trump article,
> 19K for Barack Obama, and 16K for George Washington. So this definitely
> suggests that the readers who presumably make up the bulk of the views  on
> the presidential articles  are not looking at the obvious category for such
> folk (although they might be moving between presidential articles using by
> navboxes, succession boxes, lists or other links). Having said that, the
> Donald Trump article has *53* categories of which Presidents of the United
> States is number 39 (they appear to be alphabetically ordered), so it is
> possible that the reader never found the presidential category which is
> lost in a sea o

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

[Samuel Klein]

Seconded - and it looks simply gorgeous.

On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 10:04 PM, Heather Ford  wrote:

> This is great. So much easier to find things and understand what the team
> is doing :) Nice work!
>
> Dr Heather Ford
> Senior Lecturer, School of Arts & Media <https://sam.arts.unsw.edu.au/>,
> University of New South Wales
> w: hblog.org / EthnographyMatters.net <http://ethnographymatters.net/> /
> t:
> @hfordsa <http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa>
>
>
> On 7 February 2018 at 05:44, Dario Taraborelli  >
> wrote:
>
> > *Hey all,We’re thrilled to announce the Wikimedia Research team now has a
> > simple, navigable, and accessible landing page, making our output,
> > projects, and resources easy to discover and learn about:
> > https://research.wikimedia.org <https://research.wikimedia.org/> The
> > Research team decided to create a single go-to page (T107389
> > <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T107389>) to provide an additional
> way
> > to discover information we have on wiki, for the many audiences we would
> > like to engage with – particularly those who are not already familiar
> with
> > how to navigate our projects. On this page, potential academic
> > collaborators, journalists, funding organizations, and others will find
> > links to relevant resources, contact information, collaboration and
> > partnership opportunities, and ways to follow the team's work.There are
> > many more research resources produced by different teams and departments
> at
> > WMF – from Analytics, to Audiences, to Grantmaking, and Programs. If you
> > see anything that’s missing within the scope of the Research team, please
> > let us know <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T107389>!Dario*
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > *Dario Taraborelli  *Director, Head of Research, Wikimedia Foundation
> > wikimediafoundation.org • nitens.org • @readermeter
> > <http://twitter.com/readermeter>
> > ___
> > 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
>



-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Research into Requests for Comments and the closing process

[Samuel Klein]

Also RfC practice has varied dramatically over the years; and across wiki
communities of different sizes; and varies strongly with the quality of the
summary being commented on.   In many contexts & scales it is ineffective;
in others it can work well.

A good RfC leads to useful improvement almost all of the time, regardless
of outcome.  A bad one has the outcome "do nothing unless a supermajority
of people agree with the proposal as initially written".

You might also want to reach out to other collaborative communities --
other wikis, Loomio? IETF? -- for compraison of what they like and would
change about their variations :)

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 10:15 PM, Jonathan Cardy <
werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Amy,
>
> That's an interesting topic, for your database you might want to just
> filter your dataset for some outliers that start and close on the first of
> April broadly construed (it is more than forty hours from when April Fools
> day starts in New Zealand to when it ends in California).
>
> Regards
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> > On 31 May 2017, at 20:40, Amy Zhang  wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > We are preparing to conduct some research into the process of how
> Requests
> > for Comments (RfCs) get discussed and closed. This work is further
> > described in the following Wikimedia page: https://meta.wikimedia.o
> > rg/wiki/Research:Discussion_summarization_and_decision_
> support_with_Wikum
> >
> > To begin, we are planning to do a round of interviews with people who
> > participate in RfCs in English Wikipedia, including frequent closers,
> > infrequent closers, and people who participate in but don't close RfCs.
> We
> > will be asking them about how they go about closing RfCs and their
> opinions
> > on how the overall process could be improved. We are also creating a
> > database of all the RfCs on English Wikipedia that have gone through a
> > formal closure process and parsing their conversations.
> >
> > While planning the interviews, we thought that the information that we
> > gather could be of interest to the Wikimedia community, so we wanted to
> > open it up and ask if there was anything you would be interested in
> > learning about RfCs or RfC closure from people who participate in them.
> > Also, if you know of existing work in this area, please let us know.
> >
> > Thank you!
> >
> > Amy
> >
> >
> > --
> > Amy X. Zhang | Ph.D. student at MIT CSAIL | http://people.csail.mit.edu/
> axz
> > | @amyxzh
> > ___
> > 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
>



-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Research on automatically created articles

[Samuel Klein]

Thanks Sidd for responding actively in this thread.

The biggest problem here: the algorithm used in this research were bad.
They produced nonsense that wasn't remotely grammatical.  You should have
caught most of these problems.  (The early version of the bot (for just
plays) had a poor success rate as well, but it seemed plausible that a
template for tiny play articles could be effectively filled out with
automation.)

Two interesting results IMO:
 + A nonsensical article with a decent first sentence & sections, and refs
(however random), can serve as encouragement to write a real article.
Possibly more of an encouragement than just the first sentence alone.  I
believe there's some related research into how people respond to cold
emails that include mistakes & nonsense.  (Surely there's a more effective
\ non-offensive way to produce similar results)
 + We could use even a naive measure of the coverage & consistency of new
article review.  (If it drops below a certain threshhold, we could do
something like change the background color & search-engine metadata for
pages that haven't been properly reviewed yet)

For future researchers:
If we encourage people to spend more time making tools work – rather than
doing something simple (even counterproductive) and writing a paper about
it – everyone will benefit.  The main namespace is full of bots, both fully
automatic and requiring a human to run them. Anyone considering or
implementing wiki automation should look at them and talk to the community
of bot maintainers.

Sam

On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 1:28 PM, siddhartha banerjee 
wrote:

> Ziko,
>
> Thanks for your detailed email. Agree on all the comments.
>
> Some earlier comments might have been harsh, but I understand that there
> is a valid reason behind it and also the dedication of so many people
> involved to help reach Wikipedia where it is today.
>
> We should have been more diligent in finding out policies and rules
> (including IRB) before entering content on Wikipedia. We promise not to
> repeat anything of this sort in the future and also I am trying to
> summarize all that has been discussed here to prevent such unpleasant
> experiences from other researchers in this area.
>
> -- Sidd
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>


-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] ORES going into production

[Samuel Klein]

Such good news.  Thanks Aaron!  We were just talking about the many uses of
ORES data (including bulk queries for data for an entire category or wiki)
at the Kiwix hackathon. SJ

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 8:08 PM, Aaron Halfaker 
wrote:

> Hey folks,
>
> We (The Revision Scoring Team[1]) are happy to announce the deployment of
> the ORES service[2] in production at a new address:
> https://ores.wikimedia.org.  This will replace the old Wikimedia Labs
> address soon: https://ores.wmflabs.org.  Along with this new location, we
> are running on more predictable infrastructure that will allow us to
> increase our uptime and to make the service available to MediaWiki and
> extensions directly.
>
> We've also begun deploying the ORES review tool[3] as a beta feature on
> Wikidata and Persian Wikipedia in order trial the fully integrated
> extension.  Once enabled, the ORES review tool highlights edits that are
> likely to be damaging in Special:RecentChanges to help you prioritize your
> patrolling work. ORES is an experimental technology.  We encourage you to
> take advantage of it but also to be skeptical of the predictions made.
> Please reach out to us with your questions and concerns.
>
> We'll soon begin to deploy the ORES review tool to more wikis.  Next up
> are English, Portuguese, Russian, Dutch and Turkish Wikipedias.  We can
> deploy to these wikis because those communities have completed Wiki
> labels[4] campaigns that help train ORES' classifiers to differentiate
> good-faith mistakes from vandalism.  If you'd like to get the ORES review
> tool deployed in your wiki, please reach out to us for help setting up or
> completing a Wiki labels campaign on your local wiki.  Wikimania
> participants can also attend our workshop[5] during the hackathon to get
> setting up ORES  for your local wiki.
>
> Documentation:
>  * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/ORES_review_tool
>  * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ORES
>  * https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Objective_Revision_Evaluation_Service
> Bugs & feature requests:
> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/revision-scoring-as-a-service-backlog/
> IRC: #wikimedia-ai[6]
>
> 1.
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Revision_scoring_as_a_service#Team
> 2. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Objective_Revision_Evaluation_Service
> 3. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/ORES_review_tool
> 4. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_labels
> 5. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T134628
> 6. https://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=#wikimedia-ai
>
> Stay tuned for an update about deprecation of ores.wmflabs.org and
> announcements of support for new wikis.  Please feel free to reach out to
> us with any questions/ideas.
>
> -Aaron
>
> _______
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>


-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Gender bias in GitHub (but not entirely what you expect)

[Samuel Klein]

The full paper is very much worth reading.

Peter writes:
> One theory may be that outsiders contribute trivial fixes, which are
> virtually assured to have a 100% acceptance rate by communities that
> wish to expand.

Did you read the paper?
"the changes proposed by women typically included more lines of code than
men's, so they weren't just submitting smaller contributions either."

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 6:42 AM, Flöck, Fabian 
wrote:

> There are several issues with this study, some of which are pointed out
> here in a useful summary:
> http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/02/12/before-you-get-too-excited-about-that-github-study/
>  .
>
>

Fabian, slatestarcodex is a perennially unreliable source on discussions of
gender issues. You cannot take his analysis at face value and have to
actually read the paper.


> Especially making the gender responsible for the difference in contrast to
> other attributes of the users that might be just linked to the gender
> (maybe the women that join GitHub are just the very
> best/professional women, contribute only to specific types of code, etc.,
> etc.)
>

The authors discuss this at length.  The result observed held true across
all languages and many types of code.  And their conclusions are indeed
guesses about what shared attributes might lead to the strong statistical
observation.
"Given that there is no "computer science gene" that occurs more often in
women than in men, there has to be a social bias at work."
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

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

[Samuel Klein]

That's fair, Kerry.  The structure of a wikiProject as often conceived is
so high-maintenance that it just barely worked when there was 2x-10x more
wiki activity in focused areas.  At present, they're no longer really
viable; and our historical memory of what wikiProjects can be or do isn't
that relevant today.

There has always been lighter-weight coordination through scripts (and
those who use them) and talk pages.  Thoughtful tracking of coordination
would look across all of those types of efforts; find the very active
people reaching out to others and let them template & script their work;
and perhaps help create wikiProject-like dashboards for every such group.

That said, the largest initiatives - from typo-fixing to quality-tagging to
tree of life - did have wikiProjects associated with them.  Whether those
came first, or second, after there was a group actively doing the work, is
a different question.

SJ

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Kerry Raymond 
wrote:

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



-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

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

[Samuel Klein]

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:45 AM, Jonathan Cardy  wrote:
>
>
> More broadly it would be good to know if wikiprojects are good for editor
> recruitment and retention. My hypothesis is that if someone if someone
> tries out editing Wikipedia and is steered to an active and relevant
> wikiproject then they will be more likely to continue after that first
> trial edit. I simply don't know whether introducing people to inactive
> wikiprojects is worthwhile or what the cutoff is on activity.
>

That's probably right.  I think a nice cutoff on activity would be: ask all
wikiprojects to come up with a banner to show to a subset of newbies, to
indicate how many newbies or impressions they want (what they think they
can handle), and to create a page/section with an intro and projects for
newbies, if they don't already have one.   Any project that can manage this
is welcome to get a few newbies to work with if they want, in my book.


> we could have a phenomenon here that will over time exacerbate wikipedia's
> problem of patchy coverage with the better covered topics improving faster
> than the gaps. Conversely if each topic has a founder effect then over time
> Wikipedia will become less uneven as more and more topics go through the
> phase of having an active editor or editors making their mark on the topic
> by radically improving articles.
>

Isn't that how the projects have worked so far?  the above happens, but
also when a topic is fully covered it becomes boring to all but the
completionists, so they look for other things to do.  So patchwork
hyperfocus flutters across fields and topics and ends up covering quite a
lot.  That type of individual focus is probably less biased towards 'the
popular stuff' than the diffuse tidbit updates that add recent links and
current events: the unevenness of the latter is more noticeable, since it
is steady over time.

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Citoid (automatically formatted citations) now available on Meta-Wiki

[Samuel Klein]

Wonderful, thanks Guillaume.
On Oct 20, 2015 3:35 PM, "Guillaume Paumier"  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> If you sometimes edit citation-heavy pages on Meta-Wiki (for example when
> you
> document your projects in the Research: namespace), you might be
> interested in
> knowing that you can now automatically format your citations with Citoid.
>
> Citoid is a tool based on Zotero and integrated with the visual editor on
> Wikimedia wikis. It allows you to automatically retrieve metadata about a
> citation using its DOI or URI, and automatically format and insert that
> information using the standard citation templates from Wikipedia.
>
> Citoid has been in use on several Wikipedia wikis for a while, but it
> wasn't
> set up to work on Meta. Given that Meta hosts a lot of research
> documentation,
> I decided to configure it as well (mostly for my own convenience, but it
> benefits everyone :)
>
> You can refer to Wikipedia's user guide to see screenshots of Citoid:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VisualEditor/User_guide#Using_Citoid
>
> (To learn more about Citoid itself and how it works behind the scenes, see
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Citoid )
>
> Citoid works with the visual editor, which you can enable in your user
> preferences if you haven't already. In your beta options:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures
> click on "Visual editing" and then save your preferences.
>
> If you have an account on Meta and have enabled visual editing, you can
> test
> Citoid in your personal sandbox:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyPage/sandbox
>
> In the visual editor, click the "Cite" button in the toolbar. Try to add,
> for
> example:
> * http://abs.sagepub.com/content/57/5/664
> * 10.2139/ssrn.2021326
> * http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0262016575
> and watch as they become complete citations, fully formatted with the
> appropriate templates.
>
> I have also taken this opportunity to update the main citation templates on
> Meta (cite journal, cite book, etc.) with their most recent version from
> the
> English Wikipedia, using the latest Lua modules. I haven't imported all of
> Wikipedia's citation templates, only the most common. Feel free to reach
> out
> to me off-list and/or on-wiki if you want me to import another one.
>
> As always, feel free to drop by in the #wikimedia-research channel on
> Freenode
> IRC if you notice a problem. (And you're welcome to stay once you get
> there!
> We're a welcoming bunch.)
>
> (As a side note, if there is someone familiar with Semantic MediaWiki
> around,
> I'd love to see if we can couple it with Citoid, in order to match their
> fields. This would make it much easier to add new entries to WikiPapers,
> simply
> by entering their DOI/URI.)
>
> --
> Guillaume Paumier
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> ___
> 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] Aidez à améliorer l'exhaustivité de Wikipédia en français

[Samuel Klein]

Leila - great responses, thank you.

On Jun 26, 2015 1:28 PM, "Juergen Fenn"  wrote:
>
> you certainly leave it to the editor whether or not to take action and
actually translate an article you have suggested.
>
> However, I think a threshold is crossed here with the Wikimedia
Foundation interfering into the editors' business. It has generally been
accepted that the Foundation will not care about content creation, except
for handling DMCA takedown requests as office actions.

The WMF has cared openly about content creation since at least 2009 when
quality and content metrics, and the breadth and diversity of contributors
(because of its impact on content) were made core strategic goals.

But I think this is a more interesting question here: not 'can (one actor)
solicit creation', but 'how can one part of the community solicit creation
at large scale'.

Yes, the WMF is involved with this effort
So is Stanford. But it seems this is closer to people testing the first
bots: it is about building a code and social framework in which anyone
could run an outreach campaign by finding other contributors according to
some metric, and asking them to do tasks according to some other metric.

That is what's primarily at stake here: whether this makes sense and how to
do it well. Then secondarily, who should do it, how often, with what level
of explicit buy-in.

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Aidez à améliorer l'exhaustivité de Wikipédia en français

[Samuel Klein]

Interesting, I figured I received the mail because of joining translation
projects.   It seems that it's enough to have made a single edit in both
language wikipedias in the last year.

I hope you will do this in both directions for each language pair (both
suggestions from FR --> EN and from EN --> FR.)

On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 12:29 AM, Emmanuel Engelhart 
wrote:
>
> FYI, the Wikipedia in French has an article evaluation program (like on
> Wikipedia in English) based on wikiprojects, so honestly I think they
> already know pretty well where are the weakness without the help of a
> robot: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projet:%C3%89valuation/Index


The article eval programs like this one are really good. I agree that's a
good source of prioritization of topics  (whether or not a bot is involved;
bots are people too).  But this system isn't so good at identifying topics
that haven't yet been written.

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Aidez à améliorer l'exhaustivité de Wikipédia en français

[Samuel Klein]

This is such a delightful experience.  Whoever is working on translation
interfaces and translation research this way: very nicely done indeed.

Sadly, automatic translation hinting doesn't seem to be available yet.  Or
at least it's
Non disponible pour français

SJ


2015-06-25 15:59 GMT-07:00 Wikimedia Research <
recommender-feedb...@wikimedia.org>:

> Bonjour, L’équipe Recherche de la Fondation Wikimédia (Wikimedia
> Research) travaille actuellement sur l’identification d’articles populaires
> et importants1 <#14e2cf2eca33408f_fn1> dans certaines langues du projet
> Wikipédia qui n’existent pas encore sur le Wikipédia francophone. Les cinq
> articles suivants existent dans la version anglophone de Wikipédia et sont
> considérés comme étant importants pour les autres langues du projet. Au vu
> de votre historique de contribution à Wikipédia, nous pensons que vous êtes
> un(e) excellent candidat(e) pour contribuer à ces articles. Démarrer la
> création de l'un de ces articles serait un premier pas considérable en vue
> d'élargir les connaissances disponibles en français.2
> <#14e2cf2eca33408f_fn2>
>
> Dollfus' stargazer
> 
>
> Request Tracker
> 
>
> American Poultry Association
> 
>
> Attribute–value pair
> 
>
> Kal Aaj Aur Kal
> 
>
>   Nous vous remercions d'avance pour votre aide. 3 <#14e2cf2eca33408f_fn3>
> 4 <#14e2cf2eca33408f_fn4>
>
> Equipe de Recherche
> Fondation Wikimédia
> 149 New Montgomery Street, 6th Floor
> San Francisco, CA, 94105
> 415.839.6885 (Office)
> --
>  1. Nous identifions les articles importants et populaires grâce à un
> algorithme. Cette sélection d'articles peut être un résultat personnalisé
> ou aléatoire. Vous pouvez en apprendre davantage sur la personnalisation et
> les méthodes utilisées pour trouver les articles importants à cette
> adresse
> 
> .
> 2. Les liens pointent vers l’outil de traduction de Wikipédia
> (ContentTranslation Tool). Cet outil est en cours de développement par
> l’équipe Language Engineering de la fondation (pour l’instant en version
> beta dans certaines langues). En savoir plus:
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Content_translation.
> 3. Si vous désirez plus d’informations sur ce projet de recherche, vous
> pouvez lire cette page
> 
> (en anglais), et nous en parler sur sa page de discussion
> 
> (en anglais de préférence, même si nous trouverons certainement un
> traducteur si vous nous écrivez en français :).
> 4. Votre avis est important pour nous. Faites nous part de vos impressions
> par courriel à l’adresse recommender-feedb...@wikimedia.org.
>
>
> Si vous ne souhaitez plus recevoir de courriel de Wikimedia Research,
> merci d’envoyer un courriel ayant pour sujet "unsubscribe" à l’adresse
> recommender-feedb...@wikimedia.org>.
>
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Community health (retitled thread)

[Samuel Klein]

the decline of wikimedia-l" may be a
>>> sign of
>>> > bad health of the overall community, or it may simply mean that the
>>> healthy
>>> > and constructive parts of the community has moved elsewhere.
>>> >
>>> > To re-iterate what I said in the last email, I'm all ears for
>>> suggestions
>>> > on creative community metrics. I'll add here that I'm also very open to
>>> > suggestions on what a new wikimedia-l might look like. (I know some
>>> FOSS
>>> > communities are having good experiences with discourse.org, for
>>> example.)
>>> > No commitment that WMF can act on either immediately, of course, but I
>>> > think it is worth starting both of those discussions.
>>> >
>>> > Luis
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Luis Villa
>>> > Sr. Director of Community Engagement
>>> > Wikimedia Foundation
>>> > *Working towards a world in which every single human being can freely
>>> share
>>> > in the sum of all knowledge.*
>>> > ___
>>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> > wikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> wikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org>
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>
>


-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] New dumps for 268 902 Wikia wikis: most complete ever

[Samuel Klein]

Thank you as always for this work.
It is enormously helpful, for casual analysis as well as deep research.  SJ
On Feb 6, 2015 12:37 AM, "Federico Leva (Nemo)"  wrote:

> I just published https://archive.org/details/wikia_dump_20141219 :
>
> 
>
> Snapshot of all the known Wikia dumps. Where a Wikia public dump was
> missing, we produced one ourselves. 9 broken wikis, as well as lyricswikia
> and some wikis for which dumpgenerator.py failed, are still missing; some
> Wikia XML files are incorrectly terminated and probably incomplete.
>
> In detail, this item contains dumps for 268 902 wikis in total, of which
> 21 636 full dumps produced by Wikia, 247 266 full XML dumps produced by us
> and 5610 image dumps produced by Wikia. Up to 60 752 wikis are missing.
> Nonetheless, this is the most complete Wikia dump ever produced.
>
> 
>
> We appreciate help to:
> * verify the quality of the data (for Wikia dumps I only checked valid
> gzipping; for WikiTeam dumps only XML well-formedness
> https://github.com/WikiTeam/wikiteam/issues/214 );
> * figure out what's going on for those 60k missing wikis
> https://github.com/WikiTeam/wikiteam/commit/a1921f0919c7b44cfef967f5d07ea4
> 953b0a736d ;
> * improve dumpgenerator.py management of huge XML files
> https://github.com/WikiTeam/wikiteam/issues/8 ;
> * fix anything else! https://github.com/WikiTeam/wikiteam/issues
>
> For all updates on Wikia dumps, please watchlist/subscribe to the feed of:
> http://archiveteam.org/index.php?title=Wikia (notable update: future
> Wikia dumps will be 7z).
>
> Nemo
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

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

[Samuel Klein]

Both the desire for highly granular data and the concerns about
privacy seem somewhat caricatured in this conversation :)

Valerio writes:

> Access traces need to be accurate to model the workload on the servers
> that are storing the contents being served the web serves.
> A resolution bigger than 1 second would not reflect the access patterns on
> Wikipedia, or similarly versioned, web sites.

I don't understand your last sentence.  Why can't you do the analysis
you describe with hour-resolution data?  It might help this discussion
if you did a sample analysis for one page & one day, with available
data, and indicated where higher res would help.

Pine writes:

> Someone might be able to monitor the user's end of the transactions, such
> as by having university network logs that show destination domains and
> timestamps, in such a way that they could pair the university logs with
> Wikimedia access traces of one second granularity and thus defeat some
> measures of privacy for the university's Wikimedia users, correct?

en.wp gets 2000+ pageviews/s, so not much privacy is lost in that
scenario, which is already pretty narrow: if you have access to the
university logs, you might have access to the full destination url.
I'm having a hard time seeing how high-res data (full urls, no source)
would be a privacy risk – but if needed, binning could likely be done
closer to the second than to the hour.

Warmly, Sam


On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 7:56 AM, Valerio Schiavoni
 wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> it seems the discussion is sparkling an interesting debate, thanks to
> everyone.
>
> To put back things in context, we use Wikipedia as one of the few websites
> where users can access different 'versions' of the same page.
> Users mostly read the most recent version of a given page, but from time to
> time, read accesses to the 'history' of a page happens.
> New versions of a page are created as well. Finally, users might potentially
> need to explore several old versions of a given web page, for example by
> accessing the details of its history[1].
> Access traces need to be accurate to model the workload on the servers that
> are storing the contents being served the web serves.
> A resolution bigger than 1 second would not reflect the access patterns on
> Wikipedia, or similarly versioned, web sites.
> We use these access patterns to test different version-aware storage
> techniques.
> For those interested, I could send the pre-print version of an article that
> I will present next month at the IEEE SRDS'14 conference.
>
> For what concern potential privacy concerns about disclosing such traces, I
> would like to stress that we are not looking into 'who' or from 'where' a
> given URL was requested. Those informations are completely absent from the
> Wikibench traces, and can/should remain such in new traces.
>
> Let's say Wikipedia somehow reveals the top-10 most-visited pages in the
> last minute: would that represent a privacy breach for some users? I hardly
> doubt so, and I invite the audience to convince me about the contrary.
>
> Best regards,
> Valerio
>
> 1- For example:
> http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&action=history
>
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Pine W  wrote:
>>
>> Let's loop back to the request at hand. Valerio, can you describe your use
>> case for access traces at intervals shorter than one hour? The very likely
>> outcome of this discussion is that the access traces at shorter intervals
>> will not be made available, but I'm curious about what you would do with the
>> data if you had it.
>>
>> Pine
>>
>> On Sep 18, 2014 4:55 PM, "Richard Jensen"  wrote:
>>>
>>> the basic issue in sampling is to decide what the target population T
>>> actually is. Then you weight the sample so that each person in the target
>>> population has an equal chance w  and people not in it have weight zero.
>>>
>>> So what is the target population we want to study?
>>> --the world's population?
>>> --the world's educated population?
>>> --everyone with internet access
>>> --everyone who ever uses Wikipedia
>>> --everyone who use it a lot
>>> --everyone  who has knowledge to contribute in positive fashion?
>>> --everyone  who has the internet, skills and potential to contribute?
>>> --everyone  who has the potential to contribute but does not do so?
>>>
>>> Richard Jensen
>>> rjen...@uic.edu
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>&g

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Joining derp?

[Samuel Klein]

On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 8:12 AM, Ed Summers  wrote:
> On Sep 3, 2014, at 11:00 AM, Jonathan Morgan  wrote:
>> Sigh. Yes. We were early adopters of DERP. Then we had to pull out. But it 
>> might still happen someday. It's complicated :/
>
> If you can share why it's complicated I'd love to hear ; I suspect it's 
> political, but oftentimes these politics have research implications.

Ditto.

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

[Wiki-research-l] Joining derp?

[Samuel Klein]

Has this been considered?  It seems to apply to us in many ways.

http://news.yahoo.com/course-reddit-imgur-named-research-institute-derp-142950548.html
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wikimedia monthly research showcase: Feb 26, 11.30 PT

[Samuel Klein]

On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 6:43 PM, Samuel Klein  wrote:

> Is there a catalog of all data that could possibly be available (for
> instance, the mw.session cookie), along with where it is logged, for
> how long, and where in various toolchains it gets stripped out?

Another example someone pointed out today: our search logs.
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/09/19/what-are-readers-looking-for-wikipedia-search-data-now-available/

Is there a sense of how many groups wanted this data?
Was it possible to publish those logs without field #4, or was that
simply not interesting?  &c.

Extra thanks for having the showcases permanently up online!

SJ

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wikimedia monthly research showcase: Feb 26, 11.30 PT

[Samuel Klein]

Thank you for these showcases, they are great.  I'm a fan of using
session data as a baseline metric; kudos to Oliver for this work.

Is there a catalog of all data that could possibly be available (for
instance, the mw.session cookie), along with where it is logged, for
how long, and where in various toolchains it gets stripped out?

Related lists could be useful for planning:
* Limitations our privacy policies place on data gathering (handy when
reviewing those policies)
* Studies that are easy and hard given the types of data we gather
* Wishlists (from external researchers, and from internal staff) of
data-sets that would be useful but aren't currently available.  Along
with a sense of priority, complexity, cost.



On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Dario Taraborelli
 wrote:
> Starting tomorrow (February 26), we will be broadcasting the monthly
> showcase of the Wikimedia Research and Data team.
>
> The showcase is an opportunity to present and discuss recent work
> researchers at the Foundation have been conducting. The showcase will start
> at 11.30 Pacific Time and we will post a link to the stream a few minutes
> before it starts. You can also join the conversation on the
> #wikimedia-office IRC channel on freenode (we'll be sticking around after
> the end of the showcase to answer any question).
>
> This month, we'll be talking about Wikipedia mobile readers and article
> creation trends:
>
> Oliver Keyes
> Mobile session times
> A prerequisite to many pieces of interesting reader research is being able
> to accurately identify the length of users' 'sessions'. I will explain one
> potential way of doing it, how I've applied it to mobile readers, and what
> research this opens up. (20 mins)
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Mobile_sessions
>
> Aaron Halfaker
> Wikipedia article creation research
> I'll present research examining trends in newcomer article creation across
> 10 languages with a focus on English and German Wikipedias.   I'll show
> that, in wikis where anonymous users can create articles, their articles are
> less likely to be deleted than articles created by newly registered editors.
> I'll also show the results of an in-depth analysis of Articles for Creation
> (AfC) which suggest that while AfC's process seems to result in the
> publication of high quality articles, it also dramatically reduces the rate
> at which good new articles are published. (30 mins)
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_article_creation
>
> Looking forward to seeing you all tomorrow!
>
> Dario
>
> _______
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>



-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266

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

[Wiki-research-l] General user survey: future plans?

[Samuel Klein]

There has been a healthy amount of discussion recently about
project-level surveys.

Is anyone working on a general user survey?  An annual version of this
would be valuable:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/General_User_Survey

Likewise, an annual report on opt-in data from user preferences.

SJ

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] The role of English Wikipedia's top content creators in perpetuating gender bias

[Samuel Klein]

Why do you want categories in the first place?  Why not extract
whatever semantic meaning you need (e.g., about genderbread) by
parsing the sentences in each article?

On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Stuart A. Yeates  wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Samuel Klein  wrote:
>> Why do you want categories rather than structured data about gender,
>> religion, and race?
>
> Because that structured data would embody even stronger assumptions that the
> current categorisation system? Gender, religion and race are self-defined on
> en.wiki; you'd have to get the data first and then prove that your structure
> didn't contradict any of the self-definitions.

Self-definition is fine, and compatible with what I think of as
structured data: large numbers of high-granularity data points
associated with each [article].  Category data is a narrow subset of
structured data that happens to support a tree structure, in the
MediaWiki implementation.

> Coming from a Western, English-language point of view it's very easy to
> create structures that declare groups of people such as fa'afafine incapable
> of existing.

... so many assumptions you just made there :-)

If the concept of fa'afafine exists in our knowledge-set (and it does:
anything that passes some low bar of verifiability can be included in
what our projects consider knowledge), then it can be noted as a data
point applying to some other topic [article].  There is little that is
Western or English about our verifiability standards; though if you
are talking about the English-language Wikipedia, having an
English-language source increases the verifiability of a data-claim.

We can create a category for every data-attribute -- in this case,
[[category:fa'afafine]] (which does not yet exist) or
[[category:kathoey]] (which does).  If we didn't have wikidata, that
would be the clear solution.
But now it is enough to capture the attribute of "self-identifies as
fa'afafina", whether or not there is an associated category.  In
particular, arguments about "how many category-intersections of the
fa'afafine gender and other traits deserve their own category" are red
herrings.
All that matters is identifying these (self-defined) attributes in a
way that is easy to process in bulk.

> A great example of this is the perennial proposal to import biographical
> details from some library system (usually the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
> one), when they have a different definition of gender to en.wikipedia.

Why is this a problem?
The attribute "gender according to DNB" is a) useful historical data,
b) verifiable, and c) easy to add to wikidata. I believe you can have
"DNB-gender" as one of the variations on the global "gender"
attribute.  Most articles (unless they are talking about the DNB
specifically) would likely refer to the global attribute.  But this
way you can have both datasets globally accessible.  Then after the
import is done, people can write bulk data-cleaning scripts to help
humans review those articles where the two differ.  And in cases where
there is a years-long edit war about what the global attribute should
be, you can keep track of what the input source-data is from various
sources.

Sam.

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] The role of English Wikipedia's top content creators in perpetuating gender bias

[Samuel Klein]

On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Stuart A. Yeates  wrote:
> Speaking as the editor in third place with 25%, I'd like to say that my
> count is only so high because I created articles based on the [[Dictionary
> of New Zealand Biography]], a source which has already be professionally
> balanced for gender and ethnicity.
>
> From my point of view, one of the significant barriers to this kind of work
> is the consensus not to categorise all people by gender, religion and race
> (see [[Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and
> sexuality]]), alas there are good reasons for that consensus.

Why do you want categories rather than structured data about gender,
religion, and race?
We should be moving towards replacing our entire category system with
a better implementation of structured data.  Categories, while broadly
useful, are an incomplete, arbitrary, and arbitrarily heirarchical
subset of structured data.

Almost none of the arguments against 'categorization' apply to
gathering this data, structuring it, and making it easily searchable
and filterable.

Sam.

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [CODE4LIB] Job: Wikipedia Affiliate at George Mason University

[Samuel Klein]

filiate year will begin March 1, 2014.
>
>
> About the Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media
>
> Since 1994 under the founding direction of Roy Rosenzweig, the Center for
> History and New Media (RRCHNM) at George Mason University has used digital
> media and computer technology to democratize history--to incorporate
> multiple
> voices, reach diverse audiences, and encourage popular participation in
> presenting and preserving the past. The center itself is a democratic,
> collaborative space where over fifty scholars, technologists, and
> researchers
> work together to advance the state of the art.
>
>
> RRCHNM uses digital media and technology to preserve and present history
> online, transform scholarship across the humanities, and advance historical
> education and understanding. Each year RRCHNM's many project websites
> receive
> over 20 million visitors, and over a million people rely on its digital
> tools
> to teach, learn, and conduct research.
>
>
> George Mason University is a public research university located
> approximately
> 14 miles from Washington, D.C., with over 30,000 students. Global education
> and research are a fundamental part of the university's mission to serve
> its
> diverse and international student body. RRCHNM is part of the Department of
> History and Art History.
>
>
> About The Wikipedia Library
>
> The Wikipedia Library connects Wikipedia editors with libraries, open
> access
> resources, paywalled databases, and research experts. We are working
> together
> towards 5 big goals that create an open hub for conducting research:
>
>
> Connect editors with their local library and freely accessible resources
>
> Partner to provide free access to paywalled publications, databases,
> universities, and libraries
>
> Build relationships among our community of editors, libraries, and
> librarians
>
> Facilitate research for Wikipedians, helping editors to find and use
> sources
>
> Promote broader open access in publishing and research
>
> The Wikipedia Affiliate to RRCHNM position is based on the Wikipedia
> Visiting
> Scholar idea suggested by Peter Suber at the Harvard Open Access Project.
>
>
>
> Brought to you by code4lib jobs: http://jobs.code4lib.org/job/11416/
>
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>


-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wikipedia users session duration?

[Samuel Klein]

Wonderful.  Is there anything similar for reader sessions?

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Aaron Halfaker
 wrote:
> It turns out that I have docs, code and research for you.
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Metrics/edit_sessions
>
> Using Edit Session to Measure Participation in Wikipedia
> R. Stuart Geiger & Aaron Halfaker. (2013). CSCW (pp. 861-870)
> DOI:10.1145/2441776.2441873.
>
> http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/Using_Edit_Sessions_to_Measure_Participation_in_Wikipedia/geiger13using-preprint.pdf
>
> On Aug 22, 2013 12:55 PM, "Samuel Klein"  wrote:
>>
>> I was wondering this also. Are there any good measures of session duration
>> or dwell time on a single page?
>>
>> Sam
>>
>> On Aug 22, 2013 1:45 PM, "Stella Yu"  wrote:
>>>
>>> We are aware that Wikipedia does not track user sessions. There may be
>>> survey/poll companies that have surveyed people about their usage and their
>>> time spent on Wikipedia.
>>>
>>> Curious, where are there reports that can shed some light on this?
>>>
>>> Thank you!
>>>
>>>
>>> All the best,
>>>
>>> Stella
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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
>



-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wikipedia users session duration?

[Samuel Klein]

I was wondering this also. Are there any good measures of session duration
or dwell time on a single page?

Sam
On Aug 22, 2013 1:45 PM, "Stella Yu"  wrote:

> We are aware that Wikipedia does not track user sessions. There may be
> survey/poll companies that have surveyed people about their usage and their
> time spent on Wikipedia.
>
> Curious, where are there reports that can shed some light on this?
>
> Thank you!
>
>
> All the best,
>
> Stella
> --
>
>
> ___
> 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] WikiSym proceedings available

[Samuel Klein]

How great. Thanks for the link, and much love for your citations
analysis.  (please, please follow up with a comparison across
languages other than English!)

SJ
Just arrived in HKG

On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 9:33 PM, Heather Ford  wrote:
> WikiSym/OpenSym just began in Hong Kong
> http://opensym.org/wsos2013/program/day1
>
> Proceedings at http://opensym.org/wsos2013/program/proceedings. Follow on
> Twitter #wikisym #opensym
>
> Thanks, Dirk!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Heather Ford
> Oxford Internet Institute Doctoral Programme
> www.ethnographymatters.net
> @hfordsa on Twitter
> http://hblog.org
>
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>



-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] A wiki search engine

[Samuel Klein]

Hi, awesome to see thid move forward.  This is solving a major namespace
style problem (for the namespace of queries) and I fully support it.  Good
luck with the work and I would love to help test the beta.

Sam.
On Aug 4, 2013 12:24 AM, "Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada" 
wrote:

> Hi all again;
>
> After some months, we have the domain for LibreFind[1] and some usable
> results[2][3] (the bot is running). Also, there is a mailing list[4] and a
> Google Code project[5].
>
> I would like you can join the brainstorm. We need to establish some
> policies about how to sort results, bots to check dead links, crawlers to
> improve the results, and many more. You can request an account for the
> closed beta.
>
> Thanks for your time,
> emijrp
>
> [1] http://www.librefind.org
> [2] http://www.librefind.org/wiki/Spain
> [3] http://www.librefind.org/wiki/Edgar_Allan_Poe
> [4] http://groups.google.com/group/librefind
> [5] https://code.google.com/p/librefind/
>
> 2012/10/27 emijrp 
>
>> After some tests and usability improvements, I'm going to launch an
>> English alpha version.
>>
>> I still need a cool name for the project, any idea?
>>
>> Stay tunned.
>>
>>
>> 2012/10/23 emijrp 
>>
>>> Yes, there are some options: (semi)protections, blocks, spam black
>>> lists, flaggedrevs, abuse filter and some more. All them are well known
>>> MediaWiki features and extensions.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your interest.
>>>
>>>
>>> 2012/10/23 ENWP Pine 
>>>

 I agree that this sounds like an interesting experiment. I hope that
 you get good faith editors. I worry that you’ll get COI editors playing
 with the search rankings. Do you have a way in mind to deal with that 
 issue?

 Pine

  *From:* emijrp 
 *Sent:* Monday, 22 October, 2012 08:29
 *To:* Research into Wikimedia content and 
 communities
 *Subject:* [Wiki-research-l] A wiki search engine

 Hi all;

 I'm starting a new project, a wiki search engine. It uses MediaWiki,
 Semantic MediaWiki and other minor extensions, and some tricky templates
 and bots.

 I remember Wikia Search and how it failed. It had the mini-article
 thingy for the introduction, and then a lot of links compiled by a crawler.
 Also something similar to a social network.

 My project idea (which still needs a cool name) is different. Althought
 it uses an introduction and images copied from Wikipedia, and some links
 from the "External links" sections, it is only a start. The purpose is that
 community adds, removes and orders the results for each term, and creates
 redirects for similar terms to avoid duplicates.

 Why this? I think that Google PageRank isn't enough. It is frequently
 abused by farmlinks, SEOs and other people trying to put their websites
 above.

 Search "Shakira" in Google for example. You see 1) Official site, 2)
 Wikipedia 3) Twitter 4) Facebook, then some videos, some news, some images,
 Myspace. It wastes 3 or more results in obvious nice sites (WP, TW, FB).
 The wiki search engine puts these sites in the top, and an introduction and
 related terms, leaving all the space below to not so obvious but
 interesting websites. Also, if you search for "semantic queries" like
 "right-wing newspapers" in Google, you won't find real newspapers but
 "people and sites discussing about ring-wing newspapers". Or latex and
 LaTeX being shown in the same results pages. These issues can be resolved
 with disambiguation result pages.

 How we choose which results are above or below? The rules are not fully
 designed yet, but we can put official sites in the first place, then .gov
 or .edu domains which are important ones, and later unofficial websites,
 blogs, giving priority to local language, etc. And reaching consensus.

 We can control aggresive spam with spam blacklists, semi-protect or
 protect highly visible pages, and use bots or tools to check changes.

 It obviously has a CC BY-SA license and results can be exported. I
 think that this approach is the opposite to Google today.

 For weird queries like "Albert Einstein birthplace" we can redirect to
 the most obvious results page (in this case Albert Einstein) using a
 hand-made redirect or by software (some little change in MediaWiki).

 You can check a pretty alpha version here http://www.todogratix.es(only 
 Spanish by now sorry) which I'm feeding with some bots.

 I think that it is an interesting experiment. I'm open to your
 questions and feedback.

 Regards,
 emijrp

 --
 Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada. E-mail: emijrp AT gmail DOT com
 Pre-doctoral student at the University of Cádiz (Spain)
 Projects: AVBOT  | 
 StatMediaWiki
 | WikiEvidens  | 

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Recruiting gamers to edit Wikimedia

[Samuel Klein]

set="iso-8859-1"
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> And yes, if you're interested in engaging (or re engaging) with people
>> already in the community or who don't edit as frequently perhaps, you can
>> contact people who have userboxes on English Wikipedia saying they are
>> into
>> video games:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Games/Video_games
>>
>> I do this for women's history projects and programs. I either use
>> EdwardsBot and spam them with a template inviting them to something or
>> whatever, or invite them individually (more time consuming of course).
>>
>> Sarah
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Quim Gil  wrote:
>
>>
>> > On 07/04/2013 12:46 PM, ENWP Pine wrote:
>> >
>> >> I've asked these questions in other ways and places and I'd like to
>> >> hear
>> >> what other people on the Research and EE lists think.
>> >>
>> >> There are many video game players of diverse ages, genders, languages,
>> >> and locations. How could Wikimedia editing be made into an appealing
>> >> activity for people who are currently video gamers? How could Wikimedia
>> >> market itself to gamers, including console, LAN, FPS, MMORPG, and
>> >> mobile
>> >> gamers?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Have you asked at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**
>> >
>> > Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_**games<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games>?
>> >
>> > (as an outsider) I would say that gaming in general is pretty well
>> > covered, at least in comparison with other areas of knowledge. Or what
>> > would be the reason to target gamers?
>> >
>> > Editing per se is not the problem. There is no lack of gamers using
>> > wikis
>> > (and MediaWiki!) e.g. http://www.wikia.com/ or
>> > http://www.minecraftwiki.net/ . The average gamer probably gets the idea
>> > of crowdsourcing knowledge pretty well. Those wikis are community wikis
>> > though, as an editor you won't need to deal (much) with relevance,
>> > references, POV, essay, etc. I don't know what are the conditions to
>> > upload
>> > copyrighted content but probably these wikis are more permissive than
>> > Wikimedia's.
>> >
>> > Well, I guess
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Template:Move_to_gaming_wiki<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Move_to_gaming_wiki>exists
>> > for a reason. Maybe if we would send gamers (also) to
>> >
>> > http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/**Subject:Games<http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Subject:Games>we
>> > could keep a bit more talent around...
>> >
>> > --
>> > Quim Gil
>> > Technical Contributor Coordinator @ Wikimedia Foundation
>> >
>> > http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/**User:Qgil<http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil>
>> >
>> > __**_
>> > EE mailing list
>> > e...@lists.wikimedia.org
>> >
>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/ee<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Sarah Stierch**
>> Wikimedia Foundation Program Evaluation & Design Community Coordinator
>>
>> *Donate<http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Donate/en&utm_source=&utm_medium=&utm_campaign=&language=en&uselang=en&country=US&referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3D%26esrc%3Ds%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CDMQFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdonate.wikipedia.org%252F%26ei%3DYpsET93HN6isiQLIoJjSDg%26usg%3DAFQjCNG-7hzT9rkEvAjlNqBIOQ1ZDIpdYA>today
>> and keep it free!
>>
>> Visit me on Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch>!
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>



-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Wikimedia Award] vote to award 2500€ !

[Samuel Klein]

This is a great initiative!  Thanks for sharing.

On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Rémi Bachelet  wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Wikimédia France, a non-profit organization supporting Wikimedia projects in
> France, is launching an international research prize of 2500€ to reward the
> most influential research work on Wikimedia projects.
>
> We are now in the final "voting" phase of the Award, so please vote and
> forward this mail !
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_France_Research_Award/nominated_papers
>
> best
>
> 2012/7/25 Rémi Bachelet 
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>>
>> Wikimédia France, a non-profit organization supporting Wikimedia projects
>> in France, is launching an international research prize to reward the most
>> influential research work on Wikimedia projects and free knowledge projects
>> in general.
>>
>> What is quite new about this award is that everyone can participate:
>>
>> by ranking nominated papers to elect the winner (ranking is shared with
>> the award jury).
>> by submitting important articles in this field of research for the Award.
>>
>> Regarding the latter, we are now in the process of proposing papers and
>> we'd appreciate if some of you can lend a hand. If you consider a paper has
>> been particularly important in the field of free knowledge/Wikipedia studies
>> and must be taken into account, do not hesitate to submit it now!
>>
>> Please use this
>> form:http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_France_Research_Award/papers_submission.
>> Deadline for paper suggestion is August 1st.
>>
>>
>> After that, the next phase is shortlisting nominated papers. The Wikimedia
>> Award Jury will study all proposed papers to submit 5 papers to the final
>> vote in September. The announcement of the winner is planned in November.
>>
>> Please find all details here:
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_France_Research_Award
>>
>>
>> If you have any questions, please use the project talk page:
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Wikimedia_France_Research_Award
>>
>> Thanks!
>
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>



--
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266

___
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…

[Samuel Klein]

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 
> listWiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://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
>
>


-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] wikitweets: view tweets that reference wikipedia in realtime

[Samuel Klein]

I love this tool so very much :)   thank you!

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 9:57 PM, Ed Summers  wrote:

> Emilio, Taha:
>
> I realize this was long enough ago that you may no longer be
> interested but I finally got around to adding an archive function to
> wikitweets [1]. Every time the app collects 1000 tweets that reference
> Wikipedia it dumps them to a file on Internet Archive [2].
>
> One nice side effect of this is that you get a BitTorrent seed/peer
> for free [3], which makes mirroring the data pretty simple...if you
> have a BitTorrent client handy. I blogged a little bit about how it
> the archive function in wikitweets works [4].
>
> Best,
> //Ed
>
> [1] http://wikitweets.herokuapp.com
> [2] http://archive.org/download/wikitweets/wikitweets_archive.torrent
> [3] http://archive.org/download/wikitweets/wikitweets_archive.torrent
> [4] http://inkdroid.org/journal/2012/09/19/archiving-wikitweets/
>
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 6:28 PM, Taha Yasseri 
> wrote:
> > My appreciation too. and the same question, do you also store the
> records?
> >
> > bests,
> > .t
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 7:14 PM, emijrp  wrote:
> >>
> >> 2012/4/26 Ed Summers 
> >>>
> >>> This is more on the experimental side of "research" but I just
> >>> finished a prototype realtime visualization of tweets that reference
> >>> Wikipedia:
> >>>
> >>>http://wikitweets.herokuapp.com/
> >>>
> >>
> >> Very cool. Do you archive the tweets or they are discarded?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada. E-mail: emijrp AT gmail DOT com
> >> Pre-doctoral student at the University of Cádiz (Spain)
> >> Projects: AVBOT | StatMediaWiki | WikiEvidens | WikiPapers | WikiTeam
> >> Personal website: https://sites.google.com/site/emijrp/
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Taha.
> >
> > ___
> > 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
>



-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Open-Access journals for papers about wikis

[Samuel Klein]

On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 9:57 PM, Ward Cunningham  wrote:

> Joe -- I like all three scenarios because they seem to have been "plucked
> from reality". However, I worry...
>
> Wikipedia has shown that such massive collaboration is possible. But
> Wikipedia also operates under some norms that may not extend gracefully to
> the scenarios you suggest... I'm thinking specifically of "no original
> research".
>

arXiv.org has dealt fairly well with the question and perils of original
research.  I regret that they've pulled back from potential growth -- if
they had found a way to limit their overhead further, that model could be
used much more widely today than it is.

Some of the most powerful ideas we can pass on are ways to do important,
complex, and creative things without 'overhead' that feels painful and
'expensive'.  The entire edifice of academia is built on a society in which
some professions are dedicated to peer review, knowledge production,
teaching, writing, and dissemination.  As long as we live in a society that
cherishes this, anything we can dream of in the universe of knowledge
organization and sharing is possible -- and already implicitly has all of
the support that it needs to succeed.  The greatest obstacles are those we
throw up ourselves.


> My suspicion is that to be successful, a massively collaborating academia
> will have to revise traditional assumptions of leadership


Yes.  Just getting work done, allowing people of all backgrounds and ages
to lead wherever they have time and inclination, is a fine first-order
solution to this problem.  In the journal universe, Law Reviews managed
this nicely (the history of how and why they settled on student-run reviews
is worth a discussion of its own).


> Its a good time to think big, especially if big doesn't cost too much.


Truly priceless things rarely cost money; they are outside our financial
shorthand.  But they are tied to our dreams and our sense of humanity.
 This is why the most extraordinary dreams are often attainable, and draw
whole societies with them.

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Open-Access journals for papers about wikis

[Samuel Klein]

On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 3:45 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:

>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Samuel Klein  wrote:
> > I've been thinking recently that we should start this journal.  There
> isn't an obvious candidate, despite some of the amazing research that's
> been done, and the extreme
> > transparency that allows much deeper work to be done on wiki communities
> in the future.
>
> I'll gladly help and support the idea. I think that just as Mathieu
> pointed out, The Journal of Peer Production is a good candidate, since
> it is already out there and running (even if low on the radar).
>

Great.  Starting with a dedicated issue of JOPP seems like a good thing.
 The guest editors of that issue will get useful experience, and we can
test the depth of interest among submitters and reviewers, for a specific
scope of research efforts.


> One key factor in getting ISI is a community to drive the journal
>

emijrp writes:

> The idea of creating a journal just for wikis is highly seductive for
me.The "pillars" might be:
>
> * peer-reviewed, but publish a list of rejected papers and the reviewers
comments
> * open-access (CC-BY-SA)
> * ask always for the datasets and offer them to download, the same for
the developed software used in the > research
> * encourage authors to publish early, publish often (as in free software)

Yes.  All of this is important (and most could be tried out in working on a
guest issue of an existing journal)
Encouragement to publish early and often requires some new form of
publication that supports iteration and early drafts in the pubs process --
not via a separate preprint site.

> * supported by donations

This can include donations from universities and institutions whose staff
are submitting to the journal.   I suspect a young, inexpensive journal
that isn't tied to a tradition of expensie overhead could be supported by a
dozen universities that have relevant departments (like CCI and MIT,
various complexity institutes, and centers for collaborative study or
internet & society).

> And... we can open a wiki where those who want can write papers in a
collaborative and public way. You can > start a new paper with colleagues
or ask for volunteers authors interested in joining to your idea. When
> authors think that paper is finished and stable, they submit it to the
journal and it is peer-reviewed again and > published or discarded and
returned to the wiki for improvements.

That sounds like a fine intermediary, while more elaborate tech is being
discussed.   It is important to have crisply defined and uniformly
implemented peer review, not soft "after publication" peer review -- at
least for the papers that are published with the highest stamp of peer
approval.  It would be good to also have lower stamps of approval - and
archived permalinkable copies of their work - for those who simply publish
all of their work and data.

> Perhaps we may join efforts with the Wikimedia Research Newsletter? And
start a page in meta:? ; )

That would be great if WRN is interested :-)   Again, joining forces to dit
a one-time issue of an existing journal is a good way to see what it would
be like.

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Open-Access journals for papers about

[Samuel Klein]

That's awesome.  Are they also a candidate for more public recognition and
attention?  (and would they consider hosting a new wiki journal if there
was enough interest in such an issue?)

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Mathieu ONeil wrote:

> Hi all
>
> The Journal of Peer Production would be happy to host a wiki / WP special
> issue.
> http://peerproduction.net/
>
> JoPP is a peer reviewed, open access journal which makes reviewer reports
> and initial submissions available as well a completed peer reviewed
> articles (like on WP where you can look at article history pages).
>
> cheers
>
> Mathieu
>
> On 09/14/12, wiki-research-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
>
> Send Wiki-research-l mailing list submissions to
> wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> wiki-research-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wiki-research-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wiki-research-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Open-Access journals for papers about wikis (Ward Cunningham)
>2. Re: Open-Access journals for papers about wikis (Samuel Klein)
>3. Re: Open-Access journals for papers about wikis (Ward Cunningham)
>4. Re: Open-Access journals for papers about wikis (Ward Cunningham)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 11:18:25 -0700
> From: Ward Cunningham 
> To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> 
> Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Open-Access journals for papers about
> wikis
> Message-ID: 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> On Sep 14, 2012, at 11:09 AM, Samuel Klein wrote:
>
> > People should be able to publish their work as quickly as they like in a
> professional way, especially in fields that change rapidly and need to
> benefit from collaborating with one another.
>
> Hmm. What is the quickest way that we would ever want to publish our work?
> If we push on this hard enough we might change the nature of work. (Yes, I
> know, much in academia conspires against quick. Same for business and
> probably dating. But as a thought experiment, how quick could quick be?)
>
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/attachments/20120914/1216e620/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> --
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 14:31:20 -0400
> From: Samuel Klein 
> To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> 
> Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Open-Access journals for papers about
> wikis
> Message-ID:
> 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I don't know... how about:
>
> You have a good project idea someone should do.  You publish it.
> You know some people doing interesting work in the area who need x,y,z to
> tackle such a project, and add that.
> You start a project.  You publish a pointer and project name.
> Some collaborators join.  You publish names.
> You get a target to take data from, have a meeting, and publish.
> You finalize procedures and start implementing.  and publish.
> You get first data.  and publish.
> You get context for the data.  And publish.
> You find time to look at the data, organize the context, add a summary, and
> publish.
> You compile a full schedule of data, and run analysis, publishing your
> error logs and lab notebook pages on the fly.
> You give a paper bag talk with slides (and publish)
> You draft an abstract for peer review (and publish)
> You finish an abstract and submit it for review (a. p.)
> You get feedback from the journal you submitted to (a. p.) and revise (a.
> p.)
> You get included in a major quarterly Journal, with polish (a. p.)
> You get public commentary, cites, criticism; and make better talk slides
> (a. p.)
> You add suggestions for your students or others to extend the work in
> future papers (a. p.)
>
> Various fields adopt various subsets of the above; most have only a handful
> towards the end.
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Ward Cunningham  wrote:
>
> > On Sep 14, 2012, at 11:09 AM, Samuel Klein wrote:
> >
> > People should be able to publish their work as quickly as they like in a
> > professiona

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Open-Access journals for papers about wikis

[Samuel Klein]

I don't know... how about:

You have a good project idea someone should do.  You publish it.
You know some people doing interesting work in the area who need x,y,z to
tackle such a project, and add that.
You start a project.  You publish a pointer and project name.
Some collaborators join.  You publish names.
You get a target to take data from, have a meeting, and publish.
You finalize procedures and start implementing.  and publish.
You get first data.  and publish.
You get context for the data.  And publish.
You find time to look at the data, organize the context, add a summary, and
publish.
You compile a full schedule of data, and run analysis, publishing your
error logs and lab notebook pages on the fly.
You give a paper bag talk with slides (and publish)
You draft an abstract for peer review (and publish)
You finish an abstract and submit it for review (a. p.)
You get feedback from the journal you submitted to (a. p.) and revise (a.
p.)
You get included in a major quarterly Journal, with polish (a. p.)
You get public commentary, cites, criticism; and make better talk slides
(a. p.)
You add suggestions for your students or others to extend the work in
future papers (a. p.)

Various fields adopt various subsets of the above; most have only a handful
towards the end.


On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Ward Cunningham  wrote:

> On Sep 14, 2012, at 11:09 AM, Samuel Klein wrote:
>
> People should be able to publish their work as quickly as they like in a
> professional way, especially in fields that change rapidly and need to
> benefit from collaborating with one another.
>
>
> Hmm. What is the quickest way that we would ever want to publish our work?
> If we push on this hard enough we might change the nature of work. (Yes, I
> know, much in academia conspires against quick. Same for business and
> probably dating. But as a thought experiment, how quick could quick be?)
>
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>


-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Open-Access journals for papers about wikis

[Samuel Klein]

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Jodi Schneider wrote:

> Getting First Monday indexed in ISI would be a good step.


Yes.

>
> I have helped start an open access journal before [1] so I'd be happy to
> give advice. But generally, I don't think that we need more journals.
>

Well, we definitely need more arXiv topic areas or equivalents outside the
hard sciences.
People should be able to publish their work as quickly as they like in a
professional way, especially in fields that change rapidly and need to
benefit from collaborating with one another.

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Open-Access journals for papers about wikis

[Samuel Klein]

I've been thinking recently that we should start this journal.  There isn't
an obvious candidate, despite some of the amazing research that's been
done, and the extreme transparency that allows much deeper work to be done
on wiki communities in the future.

Would some of the Wikipapers folks be interested in working on this?  I'm
thinking of something like a law-review model where much peer review
happens by young researchers that are more junior (professionally) than the
submitted papers, but very very skilled at review and editorial technique.
 Which fits our community as well as it does lawyers.

SJ

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:49 AM, emijrp  wrote:

> Hi all;
>
> I like the journals that work under the same (or similar) principles of
> free knowledge projects, a.k.a. open-access journals.
>
> I would like to publish some paper regarding to wikis in that kind of OA
> publications, do you have any recommendation?
>
> I found First Monday, which is peer-reviewed and OA, but it is not indexed
> in ISI. Any more suggestions?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Regards,
> emijrp
>
> --
> Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada. E-mail: emijrp AT gmail DOT com
> Pre-doctoral student at the University of Cádiz (Spain)
> Projects: AVBOT <http://code.google.com/p/avbot/> | 
> StatMediaWiki<http://statmediawiki.forja.rediris.es>
> | WikiEvidens <http://code.google.com/p/wikievidens/> | 
> WikiPapers<http://wikipapers.referata.com>
> | WikiTeam <http://code.google.com/p/wikiteam/>
> Personal website: https://sites.google.com/site/emijrp/
>
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>


-- 
Samuel Klein  identi.ca:sj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529
4266
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Citizendium full XML dump: 168, 262 pages and 753, 651 revisions

[Samuel Klein]

Just wow...  Thank you WikiTeam and task force!  Is scraperwiki involved?
 SJ

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 5:18 AM, emijrp  wrote:

> Hi;
>
> I think this is the first time a full XML dump of Citizendium is publicly
> available[1] (CZ offers dumps but only the last revision for each
> article[2], and our previously efforts generated corrupted and incomplete
> dumps). It contains 168,262 pages and 753,651 revisions (9 GB, 99 MB in
> 7z). I think it may be useful for researchers, including quality analysis.
>
> It was generated using WikiTeam tools.[3] This is part of our task force
> to make backups of thousands of wikis around the Internet.[4]
>
> Regards,
> emijrp
>
> [1] http://archive.org/details/wiki-encitizendiumorg
> [2] http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Downloads
> [3] http://code.google.com/p/wikiteam/
> [4] http://code.google.com/p/wikiteam/wiki/AvailableBackups
>
> --
> Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada. E-mail: emijrp AT gmail DOT com
> Pre-doctoral student at the University of Cádiz (Spain)
> Projects: AVBOT <http://code.google.com/p/avbot/> | 
> StatMediaWiki<http://statmediawiki.forja.rediris.es>
> | WikiEvidens <http://code.google.com/p/wikievidens/> | 
> WikiPapers<http://wikipapers.referata.com>
> | WikiTeam <http://code.google.com/p/wikiteam/>
> Personal website: https://sites.google.com/site/emijrp/
>
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>


-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] The Wikimedia Research Newsletter 2(5) is out

[Samuel Klein]

This newsletter is so great. Thank you.  SJ

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Tilman Bayer  wrote:
> The new Wikimedia Research Newsletter is out:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2012-05-28
>
> In this issue:
>
> 1 Discourse on Wikipedia sometimes irrational and manipulative, but
> still emancipating, democratic and productive
> 2 Different language Wikipedias: automatic detection of inconsistencies
> 3 Finding deeper meanings from the words used in Wikipedia articles
> 4 How leaders emerge in the Wikipedia community
> 5 Identifying software needs from Wikipedia translation discussions
> 6 New algorithm provides better revert detection
> 7 Briefly
> 8 References
>
>
> ••• 13 publications were covered in this issue •••
> Thanks to Piotr Konieczny, Jodi Schneider and Angelika Adam for their
> contributions
>
> There's more:
> * Follow us on https://twitter.com/#!/WikiResearch or
> https://identi.ca/wikiresearch
> * Receive this newsletter by mail:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/research-newsletter
> * Subscribe to the RSS feed:
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/c/research-2/wikimedia-research-newsletter/feed/
> * Download the full 45-page PDF of Volume 1 (2011) and a dataset of
> all references covered in it: http://blog.wikimedia.org/?p=10655
>
>
> Tilman Bayer and Dario Taraborelli
>
> --
> 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



-- 
Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] - solutions re academe & Wiki

[Samuel Klein]

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 12:30 AM, Richard Jensen  wrote:
> Sadly I think this discussion demonstrates some hostility toward academe.

There's certainly a reflex against the Appeal to Expertise. But on
balance I would say Wikimedians have an appreciation and enthusiasm
for academia.  (many active contributors have connections there, as
students, grad students, profs or researchers.)

> My own thinking is currently along two lines:
>
> a) set up a highly visible Wiki prsence at scholarly conventions (in
> multiple disciplines) with 1) Wiki people at booths to explain the secrets
> of Wikipedia to interested academics and 2) hands-on workshops to show
> professors how to integrate student projects into their classes.
>
> b) run a training program for experienced Wiki editors at a major research
> library... provide access to sources... Bring in historians covering main
> historiographical themes. I think this could help hundreds of editors
> find new topics, methods and sources

These are both great ideas.

I believe something like a) has happened at a few universities, if not
at scholarly conventions.  Conventions might reach a cross-section of
hundreds of institutions at once.
And something like b) has happened at various libraries. There has
been interest in doing that in Boston with focus on a particular field
or type of special collection.

Sam.

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Wikitech-l] Git Office Hours - May 22nd

[Samuel Klein]

What an awesome idea!  Git + rsearchers FTW.  SJ

On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Sumana Harihareswara
 wrote:
> Researchers who are interested in software development will want to
> attend this office information session (details below).  We want to make
> it very easy for you to write and share your Wikimedia-related tools in
> our Git repository, so if you have any questions about that, please ask!
>
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Git
>
> best,
> Sumana Harihareswara
> Engineering Community Manager
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
>  Original Message 
> Subject: [Wikitech-l] Git Office Hours - May 22nd
> Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 15:38:52 -0400
> From: Chad 
> Reply-To: Wikimedia developers 
> To: Wikimedia developers 
> CC: MediaWiki announcements and site admin list
> 
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'd like to invite anyone who is interested in Git, Gerrit and
> code review to office hours I will be holding on IRC next
> week. Here are the full details:
>
> Channel: #wikimedia-dev on Freenode
> Date: May 22, 2012
> Time: 18:30-19:30 UTC (13:30 EDT, 11:30 PDT)
> Subject: Git/Gerrit
>
> I will be on hand to answer any questions you have about
> the git migration so far, the process moving forward, and
> anything else interesting you can think up.
>
> Have a great week, and I hope you can join us next Tuesday!
>
> -Chad
>
> ___
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l



-- 
Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] long in tooth.

[Samuel Klein]

On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 10:28 AM, David Golumbia  wrote:

> a) "but for the shouting," many major Wikipedia areas, especially in core
> areas of human knowledge, are becoming effectively finished.
<
> much of the initial excitement about Wikipedia, speaking very
> impressionistically, appears to me to have been due to the fact that there
> was so much to do.
>
> now, in such a short time, there is so much less to do.
>
> that isn't just a negative for Wikipedia--it's a negative for everyone.
>
> I am a college professor. At one time, it was fun to have students scope out
> areas of knowledge and either write or consider writing Wikipedia entries
> for areas of study.
>
> Now, I have the opposite problem. For many topics I teach (but by no means
> all) I must tell my students to avoid Wikipedia, because it produces the
> instantly demoralizing effect: "it's all been done/said already."

Mathematics and Classics both share an interesting approach to this:
they strongly encourage students to work through the standard
references, proofs, demonstrations -- on their own, and ideally
finding a more elegant way to present a known idea, or a more general
statement that applies to more than one specific.

Students spend a great deal of their learning-time finding
crossreferences across topics, or working through a classic exposition
step by step, from first principles.  This has the benefit that
elegance and clarity, rather than "comperhensive coverage" becomes the
standard -- and this is something constantly improving.  students very
quickly find any errors in the work of their predecessors, as this is
also prized.  And in the areas where there is truly no improvement to
be made, a close reading and recreation of the work has great value in
itself: as a model of clarity for others to follow.

Modern mathematics is quite a joyful and not a demoralized field; we
could do worse than follow in those pedagogical footsteps.

Sam

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] WikiPapers has now over 1,000 publications

[Samuel Klein]

This sounds like a great idea to discuss.  Less fragmentation, more
creation!  SJ

On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 6:01 PM, Luiz Augusto  wrote:
> Good question.
>
> A more detailed explanation would be welcome, but it seems that WikiLit is
> focused on research done exclusively at Wikipedias, and WikiPapers is
> focused on all wikis researchs.
>
> Maybe a fusion on project goals and data already available in one single big
> project make it more interesting to contribute or even to get moved to
> Wikimedia Foundation servers (as part of the revamp on Proposals for new
> projects being drafted on the "Sisters projects committes" too on draft
> stage http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Sister_Projects_Committee ) ...
>
>
> On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Piotr Konieczny  wrote:
>>
>> Can somebody tell me why we have both the
>> http://wikipapers.referata.com/wiki/Main_Page and
>> http://wikilit.referata.com/wiki/Main_Page ?
>>
>> --
>> Piotr Konieczny
>> PhD Candidate
>> Dept of Sociology
>> Uni of Pittsburgh
>>
>> http://pittsburgh.academia.edu/PiotrKonieczny/
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Piotrus
>>
>>
>> On 4/30/2012 6:42 AM, emijrp wrote:
>>
>> Hi all;
>>
>> WikiPapers has reached recently the 1,000 publications milestone.[1] Looks
>> like the publication rate peaked in 2009 and has plateaued in the last 3
>> years.
>>
>> I continue adding more data... but with little help. Don't you like
>> editing wikis? ; )
>>
>> Regards,
>> emijrp
>>
>> [1] http://wikipapers.referata.com/wiki/List_of_publications
>>
>> --
>> Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada. E-mail: emijrp AT gmail DOT com
>> Pre-doctoral student at the University of Cádiz (Spain)
>> Projects: AVBOT | StatMediaWiki | WikiEvidens | WikiPapers | WikiTeam
>> Personal website: https://sites.google.com/site/emijrp/
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>



-- 
Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Why Do You Contribute to Wikipedia?

[Samuel Klein]

Hello,

The research committee may have thought about this in the past; I'm
asking here because I'm not sure:

Is there some treatment online of how to reply to these sorts of polls
and surveys, to help groups of researchers working over similar
timeframes to consolidate their efforts?  Collaborating in the
structure and framing and proposed analysis, if not in the actual
running of a survey and gathering of data, just as we collaborate on
articles in a shared namespace?  That would both produce better
results and turn what could be a "researcher-user" relationship into a
more general long-term collaboration devoted to understanding the
nature of what we all do.

The process of having different research groups and perspectives
discuss their approach, could both clear up some common
misunderstandings or half-familiarities, and encourage development of
meta-research topics on wiki pages.  So that  we would aggregate and
improve information by different researchers.  Things like "the
conduction of wiki surveys" and "developing meaningful inter-survey
correlations" and "the publishing of raw data sets and error
calculations" could be turned into wiki-monographs that would enhance
the field.

This would also provide a constructive outlet for both success stories
and frustration stories of researchers -- who often leave without
sharing those final thoughts.

SJ



On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 9:43 PM, Audrey Abeyta  wrote:
> Dear Wikipedia contributors,
>
> Your valuable opinions are needed regarding users' motivations to contribute
> to Wikipedia. This topic is currently investigated by Audrey Abeyta, an
> undergraduate student at the University of California, Santa Barbara. You
> can read a more detailed description of the project
> here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Motivations_to_Contribute_to_Wikipedia
>
> Those willing to participate in this study will complete a brief online
> questionnaire, which is completely anonymous and will take approximately ten
> minutes. The questionnaire can be accessed
> here: https://us1.us.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_8ixU9RkozemzC4s.
>
> The researcher hopes to attain a sample size of at least 100 Wikipedians; as
> of now, only 52 have responded. Your contributions to this project's
> validity are invaluable!
>
> A final draft of the paper will be made available to the Wikipedia
> community.
>
> If you have any questions or concerns about this study, please contact
> Audrey Abeyta at audrey.abe...@gmail.com.
>
> Thank you in advance for your participation!
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>



-- 
Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] altmetrics and wikipedia

[Samuel Klein]

Nice information, thanks for sharing!

I think it's quite low.  In that
a) PLoS is a sister project which we should be supporting and
following closely; many of their editors are wikipedians
b) Every one of their articles is about a notable topic and a reliable
primary source
c) We could generate a useful todo list by finding a home for every
article they choose to publish.

This reminds me of the way that our inclusion of the CC-SA khan
academy videos - all those published up until mid-2010 at least - on
commons is remarkably low, even though they are now already available
transcoded into ogv.  Until a group of editors actively sees a source
of valuable knowledge as such and as something to incorporate, we
often don't use knowledge that is already out there, even when freely
licensed.

SJ

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Youth and Digital Media: From Credibility to Information Quality

[Samuel Klein]

Related to research of information quality and credibility on wiki.SJ

-- Forwarded message --
From: Sandra Cortesi

Dear Friends,

It is our great pleasure to share with you the announcement of a new
report from the Youth and Media Team on "Youth and Digital Media: From
Credibility to Information Quality." Thank you to our Youth and Media
team and members of the Berkman faculty, staff, and broader network
for their terrific contributions to this paper and our ongoing work.
More information and the full announcement is below. We invite you to
share this report widely with colleagues, students, friends, and
others who may have an interest in this area, and we welcome your
feedback and questions.

==

The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University is
pleased to share a substantial new report from the Youth and Media
project: "Youth and Digital Media: From Credibility to Information
Quality" by Urs Gasser, Sandra Cortesi, Momin Malik, & Ashley Lee.

Building upon a process- and context-oriented information quality
framework, this paper seeks to map and explore what we know about the
ways in which young users of age 18 and under search for information
online, how they evaluate information, and how their related practices
of content creation, levels of new literacies, general digital media
usage, and social patterns affect these activities.

A review of selected literature at the intersection of digital media,
youth, and information quality—primarily works from library and
information science, sociology, education, and selected ethnographic
studies—reveals patterns in youth’s information-seeking behavior, but
also highlights the importance of contextual and demographic factors
both for search and evaluation. To access the full report and
additional material, please visit:
http://youthandmedia.org/infoquality

Key Findings:
1. Search shapes the quality of information that youth experience online.
2. Youth use cues and heuristics to evaluate quality, especially
visual and interactive elements.
3. Content creation and dissemination foster digital fluencies that
can feed back into search and evaluation behaviors.
4. Information skills acquired through personal and social activities
can benefit learning in the academic context.

"Youth and Digital Media: From Credibility to Information Quality"
lays the foundation and raises questions for further explorations in
this area. The report also encourages a public policy discussion on
youth, digital media, and information quality issues. We hope you will
take the time to review the report, to build upon it, and to share it
with interested colleagues and networks.

We wish to thank all of our wonderful collaborators at the Berkman
Center, our friends at the Harvard Law School Library, and the
participants of a workshop on information quality for their valuable
contributions and their important work in the field. The report builds
upon research enabled by generous grants from the John D. and
Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick
Foundation.

As always, we welcome your feedback.

Urs Gasser, John Palfrey, Sandra Cortesi, and the Youth and Media team

--

Urs Gasser, Executive Director, Berkman Center for Internet & Society
John Palfrey, Henry N. Ess III Professor of Law; Vice Dean, Library
and Information Resources, Harvard Law School; Faculty Co-Director,
Berkman Center for Internet & Society
Sandra Cortesi, Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society

Contact us: youthandme...@cyber.law.harvard.edu
Website: http://www.youthandmedia.org
Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/youthandmediaberkmancenter
The Berkman Center for Internet & Society: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/
--

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

[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Foundation-l] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia (from the Chronicle) + some citation discussions

[Samuel Klein]

change, then the squabble
itself is a topic that should have citations for people who want to
explore the squabble further.  But Wikipedia's mission will be
undercut if experts - or people who imagine themselves to be experts -
start deleting stuff.

I would recommend that if this is a place where the conventional
wisdom is very wrong, you start a new page on the controversy itself,
with citations to as wide a variety of points of view as you can find,
and then link current pages to your new page.

My experience with Wikipedia is that you can tell if you are having an
impact by what you initiate, not what you inscribe in stone.

GLMcColm





On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 5:12 AM, Tim Starling  wrote:
> On 14/02/12 02:39, Achal Prabhala wrote:
>>  The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia
>>
>> By Timothy Messer-Kruse
>>
> [...]
>> My improvement lasted five minutes before a Wiki-cop scolded me, "I
>> hope you will familiarize yourself with some of Wikipedia's policies,
>> such as verifiability and undue weight. If all historians save one say
>> that the sky was green in 1888, our policies require that we write
>> 'Most historians write that the sky was green, but one says the sky
>> was blue.' ... As individual editors, we're not in the business of
>> weighing claims, just reporting what reliable sources write."
>
> There are lots of places on Wikipedia where misconceptions have been
> summarily dealt with, respectable sources criticised and facts brought
> to light. Unfortunately, most academics don't have time for the edit
> wars, lengthy talk page discussions and RFCs that are sometimes
> required to overcome inertia.
>
> The text of Messer-Kruse's article doesn't show much understanding of
> this aspect of Wikipedia. But publishing it could be seen as canny. It
> should be effective at recruiting new editors and bringing more
> attention to the primary sources in question. The article is being
> actively edited along those lines.
>
> -- Tim Starling
>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l



--
David Goodman

DGG at the enWP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


-- 
Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Manypedia: Compare Linguistic Points Of View (LPOV) of Wikipedia communities

[Samuel Klein]

Federico,

This is a great initiative, by the way.  Good luck with this aspect of
your project -- I hope that it flourishes and that the quality of
language-translation improves to make this an essential reference when
reading Wikipedia (particularly on controversial topics).

A next step would be to identify topics which seem to be given
dramatically different treatment on different projects -- with little
to no overlap in sources, or a significant difference in the ratio of
positive to negative adjectives, or some metric of volatility of
content within any of those single languages.

Sam.

On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 12:29 PM, fox  wrote:
> Hi all!
> As part of our investigation of the social side of Wikipedia in SoNet
> group at Fondazione Bruno Kessler (Trento - Italy), Paolo Massa and I
> created Manypedia.
>
> http://manypedia.com/
>
> On Manypedia, you compare Linguistic Points Of View (LPOV) of different
> language Wikipedias. For example (but this is just one of the many
> possible comparisons), are you wondering if the community of editors in
> the English, Arabic and Hebrew Wikipedias are crystallizing different
> histories of the Gaza War? Now you can check “Gaza War” page from
> English and Arabic Wikipedia (both translated into English) or from
> Hebrew Wikipedia (translated into English).
> Manypedia, by using the Google Translate API, automatically translates
> the compared page in a language you don’t know into the language you
> know. And this is not limited to English as first language. For example
> you can search a page in the Italian Wikipedia (or in 56 languages
> Wikipedias) and compare it with the same page from the French Wikipedia
> but translated into Italian. In this way you can check the differences
> of the page from another language Wikipedia even if you don’t know that
> language.
>
> We hope that this project will sound interesting to you and maybe you
> could help us to make it better. We're really interested in any kind of
> feedback! Please write us!
>
> p.s.: If you're facebook addicted please like Manypedia ;)
> http://www.facebook.com/pages/Manypedia/202808583098332
>
>
> Federico Scrinzi
>
> --
> f.
>
>  "I didn't try, I succeeded"
>  (Dr. Sheldon Cooper, PhD)
>
> ()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
> /\  www.asciiribbon.org   - against proprietary attachments
>
>
> _______
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>



-- 
Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Research Index

[Samuel Klein]

Ok!  I'm all for opening up channels to wider use :)  Nice work, again,  SJ


On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Dario Taraborelli
 wrote:
> Hi Sam,
>
> the IRC channel actually predates the Wikimedia Research Index project. It 
> was originally created to support the activity of the Research Committee and 
> we thought we could just open it up to host all research-related discussions.
>
> Dario
>
> On Jul 12, 2011, at 1:24 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
>
>> This looks awesome, Dario!
>>
>> One suggestion:
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Dario Taraborelli
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> we created a dedicated IRC channel on Freenode as a friendly place to
>>> discuss in real time issues of relevance to Wikimedia research
>>
>> At the moment we have a surplus of low-traffic wikis, mailing lists,
>> and channels: not a good design pattern.
>>
>> Have you considered using an existing, inactive channel for this?
>> #wikimedia would be fine, and the cross-pollination of people not on
>> this mailing list may be healthy.
>>
>> Sam.
>>
>>> We hope with this initiative to increase the volume, speed, impact and
>>> potential audience of research that helps improve our understanding of
>>> Wikimedia projects and communities.
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>



-- 
Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Research Index

[Samuel Klein]

This looks awesome, Dario!

One suggestion:

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Dario Taraborelli
 wrote:

> we created a dedicated IRC channel on Freenode as a friendly place to
> discuss in real time issues of relevance to Wikimedia research

At the moment we have a surplus of low-traffic wikis, mailing lists,
and channels: not a good design pattern.

Have you considered using an existing, inactive channel for this?
#wikimedia would be fine, and the cross-pollination of people not on
this mailing list may be healthy.

Sam.

> We hope with this initiative to increase the volume, speed, impact and
> potential audience of research that helps improve our understanding of
> Wikimedia projects and communities.

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Foundation-l] Wikipedia dumps downloader

[Samuel Klein]

On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 7:10 AM, emijrp  wrote:
> Hi SJ;
>
> You know that that is an old item in our TODO list ; )

I know, I know...

I don't mean to Domas by asking after the Commons dump every time
dumps of any kind comes up.

It's just so inspiring to imagine that consolidated visual and
auditory beauty being mirrored all around the world, it is difficult
to resist.

SJ.

> I heard that Platonides developed a script for that task long time ago.
>
> Platonides, are you there?
>
> Regards,
> emijrp
>
> 2011/6/27 Samuel Klein 
>
>> Thank you, Emijrp!
>>
>> What about the dump of Commons images?   [for those with 10TB to spare]
>>
>> SJ
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 8:53 AM, emijrp  wrote:
>> > Hi all;
>> >
>> > Can you imagine a day when Wikipedia is added to this list?[1]
>> >
>> > WikiTeam have developed a script[2] to download all the Wikipedia dumps
>> (and
>> > her sister projects) from dumps.wikimedia.org. It sorts in folders and
>> > checks md5sum. It only works on Linux (it uses wget).
>> >
>> > You will need about 100GB to download all the 7z files.
>> >
>> > Save our memory.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > emijrp
>> >
>> > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_libraries
>> > [2]
>> >
>> http://code.google.com/p/wikiteam/source/browse/trunk/wikipediadownloader.py
>> >
>> > ___
>> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529
>> 4266
>>
>> _______
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>



-- 
Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wikipedia dumps downloader

[Samuel Klein]

Thank you, Emijrp!

What about the dump of Commons images?   [for those with 10TB to spare]

SJ

On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 8:53 AM, emijrp  wrote:
> Hi all;
>
> Can you imagine a day when Wikipedia is added to this list?[1]
>
> WikiTeam have developed a script[2] to download all the Wikipedia dumps (and
> her sister projects) from dumps.wikimedia.org. It sorts in folders and
> checks md5sum. It only works on Linux (it uses wget).
>
> You will need about 100GB to download all the 7z files.
>
> Save our memory.
>
> Regards,
> emijrp
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_libraries
> [2]
> http://code.google.com/p/wikiteam/source/browse/trunk/wikipediadownloader.py
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>



-- 
Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] wikistream: displays wikipedia updates in realtime

[Samuel Klein]

On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Ed Summers  wrote:

>> Reverts could show up as a thin red line between two edits, extending
>> to the side with the word "rv", with the article title available on
>> mouseover.
>
> Do you have a sense of the mechanics of identifying reverts? Do they
> show up in an identifiable way in the IRC logs?

There are a few types of reverts.
Some have "rv" or "rvv" or "revert" [or equivalent in the appropriate
language] in the edit summary, undoing 1 edit
Some are (-N) changes immediately after a (+N) change, with some other
edit summary
A combination of the above rolling back multiple edits.  Here (-N) is
larger than the previous (+M)

The first group can be identified with few false positives - and the
-N/+N character-change used for confirmation.

S.

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] wikistream: displays wikipedia updates in realtime

[Samuel Klein]

Ed -- Nice.  To be clear, I would still appreciate a multi-column
look, because for me that is a much clearer visualization of the
site's activity than looking at any single edit-size-range.  It's like
a sparkline: you can get both a sense of flow and a feel for the
texture in the dimension of significance.

In fact, for the larger edits it might make sense to include 40 chars
of text from the update on a second line.

Reverts could show up as a thin red line between two edits, extending
to the side with the word "rv", with the article title available on
mouseover.

SJ

On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 8:33 AM, Ed Summers  wrote:
> Hi SJ,
>
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 1:46 AM, Samuel Klein  wrote:
>> Without changing the concept or algorithm much, I'd like to see a
>> three column version, with the left-most column being for all edits --
>> with speed smoothed out over time (time delay 30 seconds, average it
>> out); the middle one being edits changing over 100 chars that aren't
>> immediately reverted (time-delayed 1 min?), and the left column being
>> edits changing over 1,000 chars that aren't quickly reverted
>> (time-delayed 2 minutes?), and aren't by bots or huggle.
>
> I am trying out a slider that allows you to set an "edit size" limit,
> which should achieve roughly the same thing without the need for
> additional columns. I haven't done any checking for pages that are
> immediately reverted though (yet).
>
> When I have time next I want to highlight the bots differently, maybe
> with a small robot icon (let me know if you know of one), and allow
> them to be filtered. Also I want to add language filtering since
> several people have asked for that. I'm not quite sure how to do the
> right-to-left for (ar,fa, ur, and he) since this basically right
> justifies things, and it's mixed in with other direction text. Ideas
> welcome on that front.
>
> //Ed
>
> PS. I'm having some issues keeping the service running. At the moment
> I'm not sure if its a bug in my code or something lower level in
> socket.io, express or node just yet...
>
> _______
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>



-- 
Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] wikistream: displays wikipedia updates in realtime

[Samuel Klein]

Fancy options:

- Choose individual Projects [just look at wiktionary, for instance]
- Choose a color scheme or audio scheme to go with it [ rcbirds comes
to mind :) ]
- Add small languages
- Include or ignore bots, period

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Congratulations; the next step would be to let choose which language
> versions (or other Wikimedia projects) you want to have included?
>
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
> 2011/6/16 fox :
>> Il 16/06/2011 06:40, Ed Summers ha scritto:
>>> I've been looking to experiment with node.js lately and created a
>>> little toy webapp that displays updates from the major language
>>> wikipedias in real time
>>
>>
>> It's really nice, i think that would be great having an API to use that
>> data for other web apps (for example to get the last page that has been
>> edited from the english wikipedia in JSON or XML format).
>>
>> Good job ;)
>>
>> --
>> f.
>>
>>  "I didn't try, I succeeded"
>>  (Dr. Sheldon Cooper, PhD)
>>
>> ()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
>> /\  www.asciiribbon.org   - against proprietary attachments
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Ziko van Dijk
> The Netherlands
> http://zikoblog.wordpress.com/
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>



-- 
Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] wikistream: displays wikipedia updates in realtime

[Samuel Klein]

I'd also like to see another layer of color-coding - background
shading based on some measure of wikitrust.

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 1:46 AM, Samuel Klein  wrote:
> Without changing the concept or algorithm much, I'd like to see a
> three column version, with the left-most column being for all edits --
> with speed smoothed out over time (time delay 30 seconds, average it
> out); the middle one being edits changing over 100 chars that aren't
> immediately reverted (time-delayed 1 min?), and the left column being
> edits changing over 1,000 chars that aren't quickly reverted
> (time-delayed 2 minutes?), and aren't by bots or huggle.
>
> SJ
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 12:40 AM, Ed Summers  wrote:
>> I've been looking to experiment with node.js lately and created a
>> little toy webapp that displays updates from the major language
>> wikipedias in real time:
>>
>>    http://wikistream.inkdroid.org
>>
>> Perhaps like you, I've often tried to convey to folks in the GLAM
>> sector (Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums) just how much
>> Wikipedia is actively edited. GLAM institutions are increasingly
>> interested in "digital curation" and I've sometimes displayed the IRC
>> activity at workshops to demonstrate the sheer number of people (and
>> bots) that are actively engaged in improving the content there...with
>> the hopes of making the Wikipedia platform part of their curation
>> strategy.
>>
>> Anyhow, I'd be interested in any feedback you might have about wikistream.
>>
>> //Ed
>>
>> ___
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 
> 4266
>



-- 
Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] wikistream: displays wikipedia updates in realtime

[Samuel Klein]

Without changing the concept or algorithm much, I'd like to see a
three column version, with the left-most column being for all edits --
with speed smoothed out over time (time delay 30 seconds, average it
out); the middle one being edits changing over 100 chars that aren't
immediately reverted (time-delayed 1 min?), and the left column being
edits changing over 1,000 chars that aren't quickly reverted
(time-delayed 2 minutes?), and aren't by bots or huggle.

SJ


On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 12:40 AM, Ed Summers  wrote:
> I've been looking to experiment with node.js lately and created a
> little toy webapp that displays updates from the major language
> wikipedias in real time:
>
>    http://wikistream.inkdroid.org
>
> Perhaps like you, I've often tried to convey to folks in the GLAM
> sector (Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums) just how much
> Wikipedia is actively edited. GLAM institutions are increasingly
> interested in "digital curation" and I've sometimes displayed the IRC
> activity at workshops to demonstrate the sheer number of people (and
> bots) that are actively engaged in improving the content there...with
> the hopes of making the Wikipedia platform part of their curation
> strategy.
>
> Anyhow, I'd be interested in any feedback you might have about wikistream.
>
> //Ed
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>



-- 
Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [WikiEN-l] The general population & AfD

[Samuel Klein]

This is a nicely competent paper.  Thanks for the heads up!  SJ

On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Gwern Branwen  wrote:
> http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~lam/papers/lam_group2010_wikipedia-group-decisions.pdf
> :
>
>> "We also found that there have been two bots (computer programs that edit 
>> Wikipedia)—BJBot and Jayden54Bot—that automatically automatically notified 
>> article editors about AfD discussions and recruited them to participate per 
>> the established policy. These bots performed AfD notifications for several 
>> months, and offer us an opportunity to study the effect of recruitment that 
>> is purely policy driven. We use a process like one described above to detect 
>> successful instances of bot-initiated recruitment: if a recruitment bot 
>> edited a user’s talk page, and that user !voted in an AfD within two days, 
>> then we consider that user to have been recruited by the bot.
>> Using the above processes, we identified 8,464 instances of successful 
>> recruiting. Table 2 shows a summary of who did the recruiting, and how their 
>> recruits !voted. We see large differences in !voting behavior, which 
>> suggests that there is bias in who people choose to recruit. (From these 
>> data we cannot tell whether the bias is an intentional effort to influence 
>> consensus, or the result of social network homophily [14].) Participants 
>> recruited by keep !voters were about four times less likely to support 
>> deletion as those recruited by delete !voters. The participants that bots 
>> recruited also appear unlikely to support deletion, which reflects the 
>> policy bias we observed earlier."
>
> --
> gwern
> http://www.gwern.net
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> wikie...@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



-- 
Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [acawiki-general] Proposal: new hosting for AcaWiki

[Samuel Klein]

On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Mike Linksvayer  wrote:

> Jodi has also been really involved in the project, and Mako has been so far
> the only massive contributor. The project has probably been a success solely
> on the grounds of capturing and explaining some of the knowledge passing
> through Mako's brain. :-)

Heh :)

> Neeru should speak up on disposition of the project, but IMO:
> * Folding into a WMF project would be by far the best outcome, whatever
< changes that would entail

As a reader more than a user to date, I'd like to see this happen as
well, and would be interested in helping.  The knowledge AcaWiki
gathers is important, and deserves more visibility and long-term
support.

SJ

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Proposal: build a wiki literature review wiki-style

[Samuel Klein]

On AcaWiki:

This sounds in line with  AcaWiki's larger goal, and the small
community there is generally open to new ideas about how to structure
pages and data.  I also think the project would be appropriate as a
Wikimedia project, which would address many of the self-hosting issues
and tie into similar work on a WikiScholar project.  No need to have
multiple tiny projects when a single one would do.

> I think we want to specifically target
> our annotated bibliography to researchers, but AcaWiki appears to be
> targeting laypeople as well as researchers (and IMO it would be very
> tricky to do both well).

You could allow each biblio page to decide who its audience is.  If
there is ever a conflict between a lay and a specialist audience, you
can have two sets of annotations.  I'd like to see this happen in
practice before optimizing against it.

> * I don't think the focus on "summaries" is right. I think we need a
> structured infobox plus semi-structured text (e.g. sections for
> contributions, evidence, weaknesses, questions).

Again, I think both could be appropriate for a stub bibliography page;
and that a great one would include both a summary and structured
sections and infobox data.  [acawiki does like infobox-style
structure]

> * It doesn't look like a MediaWiki. Since the MW software is so

This is easy to fix -- people who like the current acawiki look can
use their own skin.


On Data-scraping and WikiScholar parallels:

>> My only experience with "scraping" pages is with Zotero, and it does it
>> beautifully. I assume (but don't know) that the current generation of
>> other bibliography software would also do a good job. Anyway, Zotero has
>> a huge support community, and scrapers for major sources (including
>> Google Scholar for articles and Amazon for books) are kept very well up
>> to date for the most part.
>
> Perhaps I'm just unlucky, then - I've only ever tried it on ACM papers
> (which it failed to do well, so I stopped).

Brian Mingus, who is working on WikiScholar (another related project
which may be suitable) has a great deal of exprience with scraping,
both using APIs and otherwise, and that is the foundation of his
effort.

> I don't know anything about how article IDs works in Zotero, but how to
> build a unique ID for each is an interesting, subtle, and important
> problem.

This is important, and has also been discussed elsewhere.  Some of
this discussion would be appropriate here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:WikiScholar

-- 
Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Fwd: Proposal: build a wiki literature review wiki-style

[Samuel Klein]

I would recommend using AcaWiki.  There are efforts afoot to help make
that more mediawiki-like (and to add other template models to it), and
people are exploring ways to expand its audience and functionality.

There are also some active wikimedia researchers already using it and,
including Mako Hill, who is on this list and occasionally gives a
'literature review' talk at wiki conferences.

SJ

On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Reid Priedhorsky  wrote:
> On 3/18/11 12:30 PM, Dario Taraborelli wrote:
>>
>> There are excellent free and standards-based services out there
>> designed precisely to allow groups of researchers to collaboratively
>> import, maintain and annotate scholarly references. Zotero is one of
>> them, others are: CiteULike, Bibsonomy, Mendeley, Connotea. My
>> feeling is that the majority of people on this list are already using
>> one of these services to maintain their individual reference
>> library.
>
> My take on these software is different: all of the ones I've tried are
> really rather bad.
>
> * Zotero - software to install, clunky UI.
> * CiteULike - clunky, sharing is hard, weird duplication of publications.
> * Bibdex - seems to be run by a private company which is one guy, no
> blog activity since April 2010, login required.
> * Mendeley - non-free software to install, clunky?
> * Bibsonomy - couldn't figure out how to use it, lots of bibliographic
> database noise in the interface that gets in the way
> * Connotea - run by a private company, login required (I didn't create a
> login so I don't know if the UI is any good), API seems limited???
>
> I for one do not use any of these. It's either a cobbled-together BibTeX
> document or my own Yabman software, which has a lot of flaws but is at
> least fast for putting together a paper's ref list and getting a
> decently formatted BibTeX file.
>
> The main benefit of doing it with Mediawiki is that has a nice clean
> interface and it's super easy to get started - just go to the website
> and edit. No login required, nothing to install, no software to learn
> (other than a very basic knowledge of wiki markup). We know this is a
> big reason Wikipedia is successful, and that barriers to entry, even if
> small, really discourage people from getting started, and if they don't
> get started they don't develop into core contributors.
>
> There is also a rich ecosystem of support software (e.g. It's All Text
> extension and Emacs wikipedia-mode). Bottom line, we're asking people to
> commit to spending whole days of work in the system. Would I do that in
> MediaWiki? Yes, definitely. Any of the other bibliographic software
> mentioned above? No.
>
> I would be more than happy to use something other than Mediawiki, but
> thus far nothing that seems acceptable to me has been suggested.
>
> Others in this thread have mentioned projects similar to what I suggest:
>
> * AcaWiki - This is similar to what I suggest, though the template used
> for papers needs work IMO. Could be a plausible starting point. The fact
> that it doesn't look like regular Mediawiki is a drawback.
>
> * BredeWiki - Very much along the lines of what I suggest.
>
> I think a key goal here is to not let the perfect become the enemy of
> the good. We can start a Mediawiki-based bibliography *now* and easily
> mold it into something which meets our needs quite well. If we want to
> add on fancy connector later, that's fine; but IMO simple exporters
> would be plenty for most uses.
>
> Reid
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>



-- 
Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Google ngrams

[Samuel Klein]

I was just playing with this... remarkable.   Someone should do the
same with Wikipedia's text over time, which would provide even crisper
comparisons [as within categories].

http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=art,technology,www&year_start=1950&year_end=2008&corpus=5&smoothing=4

On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 5:28 PM, emijrp  wrote:
> Hi all;
>
> I leave this link here... http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/datasets
>
> An example
> http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=collaborative&year_start=1920&year_end=&corpus=0&smoothing=3
>
> Regards,
> emijrp
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>



-- 
Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Foundation-l] Classifying what is on Wikipedia

[Samuel Klein]

Questions that affect all Wikipedias are suitable for wikipedia-l.
Research and data-related questions such as this might also be
appropriate for the research list.

Peter D - this is a fascinating question, but this thread may be more
suited to the research list until you find the technical answers you
are looking for.

SJ


On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Gerard Meijssen
 wrote:
> Hoi,
> That may be, but such practical things are local issues.
> Thanks,
>        GerardM
>
> On 20 September 2010 21:43, Peter Damian wrote:
>
>>  Original Message -
>> From: "Henning Schlottmann" 
>> To: 
>> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 8:26 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Classifying what is on Wikipedia
>>
>>
>> > On 20.09.2010 21:19, Peter Damian wrote:
>> >> Following on from my previous posts about trying to classify the scope
>> >> and
>> >> coverage of humanities subjects in Wikipedia, I have a practical
>> >> question:
>> >> is it possible to query the Wikipedia database in such a way as to get a
>> >> list of all articles (current version)?  Even better, with a second,
>> >> larger
>> >> list that indexes each article with a list of categories it belongs to.
>> >
>> > This is not a foundation issue. Please reserve this list for global
>> > affairs of the WMF. Go to the enWP-list with your local stuff.
>>
>> I have just explained in the previous thread why it is a foundation issue.
>> It affects all Wikipedia projects equally.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] WMF Staff Introductions.

[Samuel Klein]

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Howie Fung  wrote:
> I'd love to do some sort of editing frequency/time clustering.  One thing
> that might be interesting is to take a cohort of users that started editing
> in, say Jan 2008, and map out that cohort's edit frequency by month from Jan
> 2008-present and see if meaningful clusters emerge.  And then repeat for
> different start dates.

That would be fascinating.

> users self-identified as "not having left", but I'm very curious as to
> whether they actually came back.  I will try to get that stat.  But on a

This points to two different useful characteristics.
 * people who consider themselves Wikipedians (and what that entails)
 * people who edit regularly (say, a few times a month)

The latter are contributing steadily to the projects (and might
include unflagged bots, and other editors who would not consider
themselves wikipedians).  The former are people who are available to
help in some way, or perhaps taking part off-wiki.

(I apologize to any bots in the audience who consider themselves
Wikipedians. I'm looking at you, Emijrpbot.)

> more general level, it would be great to know "for user has been editing for
> x months, with an average of x edits/month, if s/he stops editing for 3
> months, there's an x% chance that s/he is not coming back."

Or, if we don't know what 'coming back' means, replace "is not coming
back" with "will not edit more than z times in the following year"

SJ

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] New research project

[Samuel Klein]

Hi Steven,

On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 7:56 PM, Steven Walling
 wrote:

> The goal of this project is to try and highlight highly active volunteers
> who may not participate in tasks that produce a high edit count. By creating
> a detailed taxonomy of sorts for all the different roles users can take in a
> project, we hope to get a better picture of who the most active contributors
> are and what they are doing.
> If anyone has done similar roles-based investigations into volunteer
> participation or has any suggestions at all, please feel free to contact us
> at feedb...@wikimedia.org.ve or via the project's page on Meta
> at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Contribution_Taxonomy_Project

I love the project name and your early mindmap.  I left some comments there.

 --
Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] WMF Staff Introductions.

[Samuel Klein]

pedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Public_Policy/Quality_rating#Rubric>.
>> > > As a data analyst, I am interested in improving data
>> > accessibility from
>> > > Wikipedia. In my dreams, I envision data from the
>> > assessment tools that
>> > > exist within Wikipedia are captured in a real-time
>> > database, so that we
>> > > can observe what is currently happening in Wikipedia
>> > and how it is
>> > > evolving in the present, rather than having to use
>> > data dumps to get
>> > > snapshots of the state of Wikipedia. I have experience
>> > analyzing and
>> > > designing surveys and would like to use that
>> > experience to take a more
>> > > in depth look at contributor demographics and
>> > motivations. I am excited
>> > > to be a part of this huge collaborative project with a
>> > mission to make
>> > > knowledge accessible.
>> > >
>> > >  >From me, Parul Vora
>> > > <http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/User:Parulvora>
>> > > (pv...@wikimedia.org):
>> > Hi Everyone! I'm a researcher and designer with a
>> > > focus on participatory and collaborative spaces. I
>> > started at the
>> > > Wikimedia Foundation in 2009 and moving forward have
>> > interest in:
>> > > creating new forms of participation (beyond editing)
>> > on the projects
>> > > that better engage a wider audience with the content
>> > and each other;
>> > > assessing, evaluating and addressing the demographic
>> > and cultural biases
>> > > in our projects; and exploring location, culture and
>> > language as they
>> > > affect the development patterns of different language
>> > Wikipedias in an
>> > > effort to identify potential for experimentation and
>> > catalysis in
>> > > younger projects. I'm currently exploring the
>> > potential effect feedback
>> > > systems (article ratings, expert reviews,
>> > visualizations of an article's
>> > > history or a user's contributions) can have on the
>> > engagement of
>> > > readers, actions of editors, and the quality of
>> > content over time. I
>> > > like infovis, ux research, and unresearched innovation
>> > and I am
>> > > interested in learning more about research with
>> > wikipedia on motivation,
>> > > behavioral economic modeling and/or game theory, using
>> > geolocative data,
>> > > mobile experiences, and profiling and trend
>> > visualizations..and your
>> > > work too!
>> > >
>> > > Let us know if you're interested in learning more,
>> > participating in, or
>> > > contributing to our efforts. And drop any of us a line
>> > if we could learn
>> > > from or contribute to what you've been working
>> > on...
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > ___
>> > 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
>
>



-- 
Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Foundation-l] WikiCite - new WMF project? Was: UPEI's proposal for a "universal citation index"

[Samuel Klein]

Jakob writes:
> there already *are* communities that collect and share bibliographic data

I would be happy if anyone does what I was describing; no point in
reinventing what already exists.  But I have not found it:

I mean a public collection of citations, with reader-editable
commentary and categorization, for published works.  Something that
Open Library could link to from each of its books, that arXiv.org and
PLoS could link to from each of its articles.   Something that, for
better or worse, Wikipedia articles could link to also, when they are
cited as sources.


Jodi Schneider  wrote:
>
> I think focusing on Wikimedia's citation needs is the most promising,
> especially if this is intended to be a WMF project.

Agreed.  That is clearly the place to start, as it was with Commons.

And, as with Commons, the project should be free to develop its own
scope, and be more than a servant project to the others.  That scope
may be grand (a collection of all educational freely licensed media; a
general collection of citations), but shouldn't keep us from getting
started now.

> As for mission -- yes -- let's talk about what problem we're trying to
> solve. Two central ones come to mind:
> 1. Improve verifiability by making it possible to start with a source and
> verify all claims made by referencing that source [1]
> 2. Make it easier for editors to give references, and readers to use them [2]
< others?  [3]

3. Enable commenting on sources, to discuss their reliability and
notability, in a shared place.  (Note the value of having a
multilingual discussion here: currently notions of notability and
reliability can change a great deal across language barriers)

4. Enable discussing splitting or merging sources, or providing
disambiguations when different people are confusingly using a single
citation to refer to more than one source.

> To figure out what the right problems are, I think it would help to look at
> the pain points -- and their solutions -- the hacks and proposals related to
> citations. Hacks include plugins and templates people have made to make
> MediaWiki more citation-friendly. Proposals include the ones on strategy wiki.
<
> Some of the hacks and proposals are listed here:
> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Proposals_related_to_citations
> Could you add other hacks, proposals, and conversations...?

Thanks for that link.

Sam.


> [1] This can be done using backlinks.
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Greenwood%26Earnshaw  )
> [2] I think of this as "actionable references" -- we'd have to explain
> exactly what the desirable qualities are. Adding to bilbiographic managers
> in one click is one of mine. :)
> [3] Other side-effects might be helping to identify what's highly cited in
> Wikipedia (which would be interesting -- and might help prioritize
> Wikisource additions), automatically adding quotes to Wikiquote, ...


-- 
Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Foundation-l] WikiCite - new WMF project? Was: UPEI's proposal for a "universal citation index"

[Samuel Klein]

Thanks for those links, John.

I agree that a separate project is needed to have a central source
that all language versions of all projects can reference.  The
citations version of Commons.

I like the French model of using "Article name (Authors)" as a key.
Perhaps with "Article name (Authors, Year)" if needed to disambiguate.
 This shares a design principle with the move away from CamelCase to
freeform article titles: one should be able to insert an article name
into a natural sentence, and link the appropriate section of the
sentence, and have it take you to the appropriate article.

To DGG's question: in the long run, the scope of "all cited works" can
be captured in such a project, at least for the works cited on a wiki
Project -- anyone making a new citation would either find it already
in the project or would add it.  Whether this covers all works cited
by active academics of scholars depends on how effectively we draw
them into our community and help them see where an extra minute of
work on their part will help thousands of their readers, reviewers,
and reusers.

SJ.


On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 12:13 AM, John Vandenberg  wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 9:49 PM, Finn Aarup Nielsen  wrote:
>>..
>> Do anyone knows anything about the French discussions on the introduction of
>> the 'Reference' namespace? Should we just implement the French system on the
>> English Wikipedia and we are there?
>
> This was discussed on en.wp in late 2007...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29/Archive_14#Is_there_a_centralized_bibliographic_database_for_wikipedia.3F_Is_there_a_way_to_make_citations_just_by_giving_an_universal_ID_instead_of_copying_a_full_citation_template.3F
>
> The proposal on fr.wp in early 2006:
>
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Prise_de_d%C3%A9cision/Espace_r%C3%A9f%C3%A9rence
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>



-- 
Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Foundation-l] WikiCite - new WMF project? Was: UPEI's proposal for a "universal citation index"

[Samuel Klein]

Brian,

The meta process for new project proposals is still the cleanest one
for suggesting a specific Project and presenting it alongside similar
projects.

It would be helpful if you could update a related project proposal on
meta -- say, [[m:WikiBibliography]], if that seems relevant.  (I just
cleaned that page up and merged in an older proposal that had been
obfuscated.)

Or you can create a new project proposal...  WikiCite as a name can be
confusing, since it has been used to refer to this bibliographic idea,
but also to refer to the idea of citations for every statement or fact
- something closer to a blame or trust solution that includes
citations in its transactions.

We should figure out how this project would work with acawiki, and
possibly bibdex.  Bibdex doesn't aim to   And it would be helpful to
have a publicly-viewable demo to play with -- could you clone your
current wiki and populate the result with dummy data?

I love the idea of having a global place to discuss citations -- ALL
citations -- something that OpenLibrary, the arXiv, and anyone else
hosting cited documents could point to for every one of its works.

Sam.


On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
 wrote:
> Brian J Mingus, 19/07/2010 22:20:
>> The basic idea is a centralized wiki that contains citation information that
>> other MediaWikis and WMF projects can then reference using something like a
>> {{cite}} template or a simple link. The community can document the citation,
>> the author, the book etc.. and, in one idealization, all citations across
>> all wikis would point to the same article on WikiCite. Users can use this
>> wiki as their personal bibliography as well, as collections of citations can
>> be exported in arbitrary citation formats.
>
> I have already mentioned it before, but this description looks quite
> similar to http://bibdex.org/ . Maybe we should join forces (i.e., send
> your proposal also to Sunir Shah).
>
> Nemo
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>



-- 
Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Fwd: modern foundations of scientific consensus

[Samuel Klein]

Hello Brian,

Brian Mingus writes:
> I wouldn't go so far as to say nobody is working on these ideas. We
> recently submitted a project proposal to the Foundation along the
> lines of community documentation of scientific (and other) sources.

You are right to call that out -- and your proofs of concept for
documenting scientific sources are the best I know of, in the world of
open code.

And I believe AcaWiki is working with you now, yes?  I thought of your
project more as summary and literature-review, rather than a global
WikiCite... something that might one day delegate its citations,
primarily of scientific topics, to a universal WikiCite.  (Correct me
if I am wrong.)  And I don't think anyone is working on a
"wikitextrose" equivalent.


> To recap: the fundamental basis of this general idea is a centralized
> wiki that contains citation information that other wikis can then
> reference using something like a {{cite}} template or a simple link.
> The community can document the citation, the author, the book etc..
> Users can use this wiki as their personal bibliography as well, as
> collections of citations can be exported in arbitrary citation
> formats. This general plan would allow community aggregation of
> metadata and community documentation of sources along arbitrary
> dimensions (quality, trust, reliability, etc.). The hope is that such
> a resource would then expand on that wiki and across the projects into
> summarizations of collections of sources (lit reviews) that make
> navigating entire fields of literature easier and more reliable,
> getting you out of the trap of not being aware of the global context
> that a particular source sits in.

I like that formulation a lot.

> We continue to hope that the Foundation
> is willing to work with us to draw up a project proposal that works
> for them, and we have also offered some programming time (I have
> already put in hundreds of hours).

Which reminds me: we need to fix our project-proposal process.

This sounds like a promising project.  Did you ever post a version of
the above to strategy.wikimedia.org?  I thought that you were going to
work with AcaWiki in the short term and see what you had in common.

David, the Open Library plugin you mention also sounds excellent for
solving the larger "every citable source in the world" challenge.

-- 
Samuel Klein  identi.ca:sj   w:user:sj

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Fwd: modern foundations of scientific consensus

[Samuel Klein]

On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Pavlo Shevelo  wrote:
> Hi Samuel,
>
> That's really GREAT - we need that a lot for many "sensitive" topics.

Yes.  Also for reconciling differences between sources in different
languages - which often carry their own quiet biases.

The Foundation is now in a position to help support this sort of work
with better contacts and brainstorming (than it was 5 years ago when
these ideas were first developed), but someone still needs to design
and run these projects...  I don't think anyone is working on these
ideas at the moment.

(Erik, David Strauss, Stirling -- any recent thoughts on the matter?
WikiData as a concept has been worked on in various ways, but I
haven't seen any discussion of this particular implementation.)

> Sincerely,
>
> Pavlo
>
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 2:38 AM, Samuel Klein  wrote:
>> The idea is to have a wiki-project with an entry for every cited
>> source, author, and publication -- including critical secondary
>> sources that exist only to comment on sources/authors/publications.
>>
>> Aggregate information about the reliability of these sources, where
>> they are used, how they are discussed and linked together.
>>
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiTextrose
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikicite
>>
>> The "wikitextrose" proposal aims to gather data about these types of
>> sources, and links between them.
>>
>> The "wikicite" proposal aims to organize citable statements on other
>> wiki projects so that one can trace the origins of the idea expressed
>> back to sources.
>>
>> SJ
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 5:51 AM, Jodi Schneider  
>> wrote:
>>> Samuel,
>>>
>>> This is great!
>>>
>>> What's the idea for a WikiCite project?
>>>
>>> -Jodi
>>>
>>> On 20 Jun 2010, at 22:44, Samuel Klein wrote:
>>>
>>>> Some motivation for a proper WikiCite project.     --sj
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> === Begin forwarded message ==
>>>> "How citation distortions create unfounded authority: analysis of a
>>>> citation network"
>>>>        http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/339/jul20_3/b2680
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Abstract:
>>>>
>>>> Objective -To understand belief in a specific scientific claim by
>>>> studying the pattern of citations among papers stating it.
>>>>
>>>> Design - A complete citation network was constructed from all PubMed
>>>> indexed English literature papers addressing the belief that \u03b2
>>>> amyloid, a protein accumulated in the brain in Alzheimer\u2019s
>>>> disease, is produced by and injures skeletal muscle of patients with
>>>> inclusion body myositis. Social network theory and graph theory were
>>>> used to analyse this network.
>>>>
>>>> Main outcome measures - Citation bias, amplification, and invention,
>>>> and their effects on determining authority.
>>>>
>>>> Results:
>>>> The network contained 242 papers and 675 citations addressing the
>>>> belief, with 220 553 citation paths supporting it. Unfounded authority
>>>> was established by citation bias against papers that refuted or
>>>> weakened the belief; amplification, the marked expansion of the belief
>>>> system by papers presenting no data addressing it; and forms of
>>>> invention such as the conversion of hypothesis into fact through
>>>> citation alone. Extension of this network into text within grants
>>>> funded by the National Institutes of Health
>>>> and obtained through the Freedom of Information Act showed the same
>>>> phenomena present and sometimes used to justify requests for funding.
>>>>
>>>> Conclusion:
>>>> Citation is both an impartial scholarly method and a powerful form of
>>>> social communication. Through distortions in its social use that
>>>> include bias, amplification, and invention, citation can be used to
>>>> generate
>>>> information cascades resulting in unfounded authority of claims.
>>>> Construction and analysis of a claim specific citation network may
>>>> clarify the nature of a published belief system and expose distorted
>>>> methods of social citation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj  

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Fwd: modern foundations of scientific consensus

[Samuel Klein]

The idea is to have a wiki-project with an entry for every cited
source, author, and publication -- including critical secondary
sources that exist only to comment on sources/authors/publications.

Aggregate information about the reliability of these sources, where
they are used, how they are discussed and linked together.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiTextrose
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikicite

The "wikitextrose" proposal aims to gather data about these types of
sources, and links between them.

The "wikicite" proposal aims to organize citable statements on other
wiki projects so that one can trace the origins of the idea expressed
back to sources.

SJ


On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 5:51 AM, Jodi Schneider  wrote:
> Samuel,
>
> This is great!
>
> What's the idea for a WikiCite project?
>
> -Jodi
>
> On 20 Jun 2010, at 22:44, Samuel Klein wrote:
>
>> Some motivation for a proper WikiCite project.     --sj
>>
>>
>> === Begin forwarded message ==
>> "How citation distortions create unfounded authority: analysis of a
>> citation network"
>>        http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/339/jul20_3/b2680
>>
>>
>> Abstract:
>>
>> Objective -To understand belief in a specific scientific claim by
>> studying the pattern of citations among papers stating it.
>>
>> Design - A complete citation network was constructed from all PubMed
>> indexed English literature papers addressing the belief that \u03b2
>> amyloid, a protein accumulated in the brain in Alzheimer\u2019s
>> disease, is produced by and injures skeletal muscle of patients with
>> inclusion body myositis. Social network theory and graph theory were
>> used to analyse this network.
>>
>> Main outcome measures - Citation bias, amplification, and invention,
>> and their effects on determining authority.
>>
>> Results:
>> The network contained 242 papers and 675 citations addressing the
>> belief, with 220 553 citation paths supporting it. Unfounded authority
>> was established by citation bias against papers that refuted or
>> weakened the belief; amplification, the marked expansion of the belief
>> system by papers presenting no data addressing it; and forms of
>> invention such as the conversion of hypothesis into fact through
>> citation alone. Extension of this network into text within grants
>> funded by the National Institutes of Health
>> and obtained through the Freedom of Information Act showed the same
>> phenomena present and sometimes used to justify requests for funding.
>>
>> Conclusion:
>> Citation is both an impartial scholarly method and a powerful form of
>> social communication. Through distortions in its social use that
>> include bias, amplification, and invention, citation can be used to
>> generate
>> information cascades resulting in unfounded authority of claims.
>> Construction and analysis of a claim specific citation network may
>> clarify the nature of a published belief system and expose distorted
>> methods of social citation.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>



-- 
Samuel Klein  identi.ca:sj   w:user:sj

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

[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: modern foundations of scientific consensus

[Samuel Klein]

Some motivation for a proper WikiCite project.     --sj


=== Begin forwarded message ==
"How citation distortions create unfounded authority: analysis of a
citation network"
       http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/339/jul20_3/b2680


Abstract:

Objective -To understand belief in a specific scientific claim by
studying the pattern of citations among papers stating it.

Design - A complete citation network was constructed from all PubMed
indexed English literature papers addressing the belief that \u03b2
amyloid, a protein accumulated in the brain in Alzheimer\u2019s
disease, is produced by and injures skeletal muscle of patients with
inclusion body myositis. Social network theory and graph theory were
used to analyse this network.

Main outcome measures - Citation bias, amplification, and invention,
and their effects on determining authority.

Results:
The network contained 242 papers and 675 citations addressing the
belief, with 220 553 citation paths supporting it. Unfounded authority
was established by citation bias against papers that refuted or
weakened the belief; amplification, the marked expansion of the belief
system by papers presenting no data addressing it; and forms of
invention such as the conversion of hypothesis into fact through
citation alone. Extension of this network into text within grants
funded by the National Institutes of Health
and obtained through the Freedom of Information Act showed the same
phenomena present and sometimes used to justify requests for funding.

Conclusion:
Citation is both an impartial scholarly method and a powerful form of
social communication. Through distortions in its social use that
include bias, amplification, and invention, citation can be used to
generate
information cascades resulting in unfounded authority of claims.
Construction and analysis of a claim specific citation network may
clarify the nature of a published belief system and expose distorted
methods of social citation.




--
Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj



-- 
Samuel Klein  identi.ca:sj   w:user:sj

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