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 'best presentation' award for WM itself!
On 2 July 2014 10:33, Edward Saperia <e...@wikimanialondon.org> wrote: > > 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 > <http://www.facebook.com/edsaperia> • twitter > <http://www.twitter.com/edsaperia> • 07796955572 > 133-135 Bethnal Green Road, E2 7DG > > > >> 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 other wikis better, what might be a more effective >>> strategy for encouraging researchers to engage with us or at least release >>> their work in forms that we can more easily work with? >>> >>> Here's a couple of half-baked ideas: >>> >>> - *Wiki research impact task force* -- contacts authors to encourage >>> them to release code/datasets/etc. and praise them publicly when they do >>> -- >>> could be part of the work of newsletter reviewers. There are many >>> researchers on this list who work directly with Wikimedians to make sure >>> that their research has direct impact and their awesomeness is worth our >>> appreciation and public recognition. >>> - *Yearly research award* -- for the most directly impactful >>> research projects/researchers similar to >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_France_Research_Award. >>> One of the focuses of the judging could be the direct impact that the >>> work >>> has had. >>> >>> -Aaron >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Heather Ford <hfor...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wiki-research-l mailing list >>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Oliver Keyes >> Research Analyst >> 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 > > -- Oliver Keyes Research Analyst Wikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
