Having had a work role oversighting many university researchers including PHD and other research students, I think many start out with intentions to engage fully with stakeholders and contribute back into the real world in some way, but it's fair to say that deadline pressures tend to force them to focus their energies into the "academically valued" outcomes, e.g. published papers, theses, etc. This is just as true for Wikipedia-related research as for, say, aquaculture. Of course, some never intended to contribute back, but are solely motivated by climbing the greasy pole of academia.
Because data gathering can be a time-consuming or expensive stumbling block in a research plan, organisations that freely publish detailed data (as WMF does) are natural magnets to researchers who can use that data to study various phenomena which may have broader relevance than just Wikipedia or where the Wikipedia data serves as a ground truth for other experiments or as proxy for other unavailable data. For example, you can use Wikipedia to study categorisation or named entity extraction without having real interest in Wikipedia itself. So I think it is for those who are passionate about Wikipedia itself to see how such research findings may be used to improve Wikipedia. As for releasing source code, it has to recognised that software in research projects is often very quick-and-dirty and probably not designed to be integrated into the MediaWiki code base. Effective solutions to Wikipedia issues often require a mix of technology and change to community process/culture (which is often far harder to get right). This is not to say they we should not encourage researchers to "give back", but I think we do need to understand that the reasons people don't give back aren't always attributable solely to "bad faith". In additions to suggestions already made re awards, just having a letter of commendation on WMF letterhead acknowledging the research and its potential to improve Wikipedia would be a useful thing especially for junior researchers seeking to establish themselves; this kind of external validation is helpful to their CVs. This could be sent to any researchers whose research was deemed to have merit with different wording for those who made (according to some appropriately-appointed group) greater or lesser contributions to real Wikipedia impact. Sent from my iPad > On 3 Jul 2014, at 12:15 am, 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 Doctoral Programme >> EthnographyMatters | Oxford Digital Ethnography Group >> http://hblog.org | @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 Doctoral Programme >>>> EthnographyMatters | Oxford Digital Ethnography Group >>>> http://hblog.org | @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 Doctoral Programme >>>>>> EthnographyMatters | Oxford Digital Ethnography Group >>>>>> http://hblog.org | @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
_______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
