Apologies. You're right, Han-Teng. The reviewer looks to be Piotr Konieczny who I think is on this mailing list?
Heather Ford Oxford Internet Institute <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk> Doctoral Programme EthnographyMatters <http://ethnographymatters.net> | Oxford Digital Ethnography Group <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=115> http://hblog.org | @hfordsa <http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa> On 2 July 2014 12:58, h <hant...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > policies to make a few edits once the newsletter is out. > > Thanks again to the contributors of the newsletter, my life is a bit > easier and more interesting because of your work. > > > > 2014-07-02 15:35 GMT+07:00 Heather Ford <hfor...@gmail.com>: > > +1 Thanks for your really thoughtful comments, Joe, Han-Teng. >> >> Nemo, would you be willing to add a note to the review and/or contacting >> the researcher? >> >> Best, >> Heather. >> >> Heather Ford >> Oxford Internet Institute <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk> Doctoral Programme >> EthnographyMatters <http://ethnographymatters.net> | Oxford Digital >> Ethnography Group <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=115> >> http://hblog.org | @hfordsa <http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa> >> >> >> >> >> On 2 July 2014 05:17, h <hant...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> 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 even spelled out the implications of the research >>> for improving Wikipedia". >>> >>> This suggestion is based on my own impression that [Wiki-research-l] >>> has mainly two groups of readers: community of practice and community of >>> knowledge. It is okay to have some group tensions for creative/critical >>> inputs. Still, a neutral tone is better for assessment, and an encouraging >>> tone might work a bit better to encourage others to fill the *gaps* (both >>> practice and knowledge ones). >>> >>> Also, the factors such as originally intended audience and word >>> limits may determine how much a writer can do for *due weight* (similar to >>> [[WP:due]]). If the original (academic) author failed to address the >>> implications for practices satisfactory, a research newsletter contributor >>> can point out what s/he thinks the potential/actual implications are. (My >>> thanks to the research newsletter's voluntary contributors for their >>> unpaid work!) >>> >>> While I understand that the monthly research newsletter has its own >>> perspective and interests different from academic newsletters, it does not >>> sacrifice the integrity of the newsletter to be gentle and specific. I >>> would recommend a minor edit to the sentence as the the newsletter could be >>> read by any one in the world, not just the Wikipedians. It is >>> public/published for all readers, and thus please do not assume the readers >>> know the context of Wikipedia research. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> han-teng liao >>> >>> >>> 2014-07-01 19:37 GMT+07:00 Heather Ford <hfor...@gmail.com>: >>> >>>> Thanks so much for the newsletter [1]! Always a great read... >>>> >>>> But have to just say that comments like this: 'it is disappointing that >>>> the main purpose appears to be completing a thesis, with little >>>> thought to actually improving Wikipedia' [2] are really harsh and a little >>>> unfair. The student is studying Wikipedia - they can hardly only be >>>> interested in completing their thesis. We need to remember that researchers >>>> are at very different stages of their careers, they have very different >>>> motivations, and different levels of engagement with the Wikipedia >>>> community, but that *all* research on Wikipedia contributes to our >>>> understanding (even if as a catalyst for improvements). We want to >>>> encourage more research on Wikipedia, not attack the motivations of people >>>> we know little about - particularly when they're just students and >>>> particularly when this newsletter is on housed on Wikimedia Foundation's >>>> domain. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Heather. >>>> >>>> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2014/June >>>> [2] >>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2014/June#.22Recommending_reference_materials_in_context_to_facilitate_editing_Wikipedia.22 >>>> >>>> Heather Ford >>>> Oxford Internet Institute <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/> Doctoral >>>> Programme >>>> EthnographyMatters <http://ethnographymatters.net/> | Oxford Digital >>>> Ethnography Group <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=115> >>>> http://hblog.org | @hfordsa <http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list >>>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wiki-research-l mailing list >>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wiki-research-l mailing list >> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > >
_______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
