On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:39 AM, Edward Saperia e...@wikimanialondon.org wrote:
On 2 July 2014 15:37, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I feel like that might be a bit short-notice - papers need to be
submitted, reviewed or voted on, so on and so forth. But it could be lovely
to have a
On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 4:33 AM, Kim Osman kim.os...@qut.edu.au wrote:
The newsletter is an important and unique space that has the potential to
foster this interaction through gathering current research and also
considering via effective and importantly *attributed* peer review, future
On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 7:16 PM, Joe Corneli holtzerman...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 4:33 AM, Kim Osman kim.os...@qut.edu.au wrote:
The newsletter is an important and unique space that has the potential to
foster this interaction through gathering current research and also
I've been thinking about this and I want to make it clear what I'm
proposing:
* that we make a rule/standard/style that people writing substantive
reviews (i.e. reviews beyond short summaries where the opinion of the
review is clearly reflected) be accompanied by a byline underneath the
headline
I've been avoiding jumping into this thread, to let people closer to
the issue have the first say but it seems to me that there are a
couple of things that bear saying:
* We're a cross-discipline group, academia and Wikipedia
* While the portion of the review in question may not have been an
Stuart -- You make good points ('render unto academia what is academia's).
But I still think further personalization and even clearer attribution
would have gone a long way...
'it is disappointing that the main purpose appears to be completing a
thesis, with little thought to actually improving
Thanks so much for this, Kerry. And thanks, Aaron for (as always) great,
productive suggestions.
I think there are two issues that need to be dealt with separately here.
The first is about disparaging remarks made about researchers'
contributions that kicked off this discussion. One idea that I
Both of these suggestions sound great to me! I'm not sure who the best
person is to move them forward (I encourage anyone who wants to volunteer
to speak up!) but whatever happens, I'm really grateful that we could turn
this into a 'how do we fix this in the long-term?' conversation and not get
Taha, even though the newsletter sections are a Wiki written by multiple
people, we could still add multiple names in the by-line. Do you see a
problem with that?
We are not writing an Enclyclopedia here, but a research newsletter (it
just happens to be hosted on an encyclopedia server). I think
Thanks Stuart, Max, and Heather,
But let's keep things simple and efficient (as it is right now).
If we want to use bylines for all the contributions, then the next question
would be whether we have to use the real names or Wikipedia user names or
even IP addresses would be enough or not (IP
Heather, I am not sure who contribute that. Probably not Nemo. If this
issue of newsletter is correctly attributed, the contributors include: Taha
Yasseri, Maximilian Klein, Piotr Konieczny, Kim Osman, and Tilman Bayer. My
suggestion is only a personal one, and I am not sure if it is against
Given that it seems we agree with Poitr's desire for research about
Wikipedia to lead to useful tools an insights that can be directly applied
to making Wikipedia and other wikis better, what might be a more effective
strategy for encouraging researchers to engage with us or at least release
their
I really like the idea of some kind of annual award.
On 2 July 2014 10:15, Aaron Halfaker aaron.halfa...@gmail.com wrote:
Given that it seems we agree with Poitr's desire for research about
Wikipedia to lead to useful tools an insights that can be directly applied
to making Wikipedia and
I really like the idea of some kind of annual award.
If someone puts it together before Wikimania, I can put it into the closing
ceremony?
*Edward Saperia*
Conference Director Wikimania London http://www.wikimanialondon.org/
email e...@wikimanialondon.org • facebook
I second Aaron's two suggestions, with a slight change of wordings of the
first:
(1) change impact to public engagement (potentially new users) or
community engagement (existing users)
han-teng liao
2014-07-02 21:15 GMT+07:00 Aaron Halfaker aaron.halfa...@gmail.com:
Given that it seems we
Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com writes:
Heather Ford, 01/07/2014 14:37:
We want to encourage more research on Wikipedia, not attack the
motivations of people we know little about
I'm not sure about the specific wording, but I think the intention is
only to stress the importance of
The tone of the sentence in question
'it is disappointing that the main purpose appears to be completing a
thesis, with little thought to actually improving Wikipedia'
could have been written as
'It would be more useful for the Wikipedia community of practice if the
author discussed or
17 matches
Mail list logo
