(in response to the wording of "Wiki research impact task force" that Aaron Halfaker proposed and I seconded. )
The word choice between "public engagement" and "research impact" may have several differences as to be detailed later. I was made aware of these differences during a digital humanities summer school last year. "Public engagement" sounds more likely to be two-way interactions where the feedback from the public is integrated into the interactions. On the other hand, "research impact" often entails the one-way influence from the research itself to other social actors or records. The similar analogy is the difference between "knowledge exchange" versus "knowledge transfer". The preferred word choice (public engagement vs. research impact or knowledge exchange vs. knowledge transfer) may differs across disciplines. My speculation is that it depends on the research spectrum of naturalistic/neutral detachment to humanist immersion. In this specific discussion on assessing the impact of Wiki research, I would expect the "knowledge exchange"/"public engagement" may serve the open knowledge community of practice better. On the other hand, to evaluate the strength of "knowledge transfer"/"research impact" of Wiki research outcomes has its own merit. However, this appears to me more like an altmetrics exercise of comparing Wiki research projects among themselves. In the more general discussion of public engagement and research impact, it is worthwhile to note that several universities in the UK <https://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/support-it/manifesto-public-engagement/signatories> have signed the "Manifesto for public engagement <https://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/support-it/manifesto-public-engagement>" (sadly my university has not signed it). Also in 2014, the coming UK Research Excellence Framework (REF) recognised "public engagement" as a route to impact. Thus, the need for UK researchers to collect, measure and analyze the evidence of impact is expected to rise. There are already university institutions (e.g. Centre for Public Engagement in Bristol) and toolkits (e.g. TIDSR: Toolkit for the Impact of Digitised Scholarly Resources from my current institution) that aim to help academic researchers to measure the usage and impacts of, not just their research publications, but also their digitised scholarly resources (e.g. datasets, software codes, etc.) Thus, based on the above observations, I guess that it is more specific to use the terms "public engagement" and "public engagement", because the focus is on the collective judgement of the Wikipedia community and the wider public to which the Wikimedia Foundation must answer. I personally prefer the term because it keeps the concept of "publicness". I still remembered that Sue Gardner said the role of Wikimedia as a host of important "public media" when I visited the Foundation years ago. Thus, I admit that my previous suggestion to assess the two aspects of impact: i.e. "public engagement" (potentially new users) or "community engagement" (existing users) may be a bit "narrowed" as Aaron Halfaker correctly pointed out. However, I do not see it as a point of weakness because the terms actually narrow down to tangible aspects of research impact surrounding the existing users of Wikimedia projects and the potential users (i.e. the general public). Of course the research impact on various academic fields and/or disciplines are overlooked this way, but I personally do not think it is the first priority for the Wikimedia as a open-knowledge non-profit institution. In this regard, the narrowness means specificity to the Wikimedia's open knowledge agenda. It does not mean that the term "research impact" is not important or useful, and indeed many researchers try to score "research impact" points. In this regard, I would highly recommend that the Wikimedia foundation and community help to document/measure/publicize "public engagement" as a *route to impact*. It would be nice if the foundation and community to give away awards, twitter/weibo/newsletter mentions, and even web click reports (to the mentioned/linked wiki research) as third-party evidence for impact. "Public engagement" in this regard refers to the public impacts that are not normally recorded and calculated by academic communities. The Wikimedia platforms can thus fill in the gap by providing a place to document/measure/publicize the latest scholarly researches regarding Wiki research, and thereby establishing a "public route" to positive impact on the global knowledge movement. I hope the long reply above makes some sense (if not, send me private emails for clarifications). Best, han-teng liao 2014-07-02 16:41 GMT+01:00 Aaron Halfaker <ahalfa...@wikimedia.org>: > Han-teng, > > Could you expand on what you are imagining with these two aspects of > impact? Also, I'd like to think that impact wouldn't be so narrow as to be > based on engagement only. Surely, researchers can produce things that are > highly impactful without explicitly "engaging" with the volunteer > community. > > -Aaron > > > On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:32 AM, h <hant...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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 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 >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
