Here some notes from Wikimania 2011.
Dario
This was my first Wikimania and it was a tremendously enriching experience. I met a lot of passionate Wikipedians and friends and finally got to meet face to face with some RCom members I had only spoken to via skype or IRC. The organizers did an excellent job and the social events have been some of the best I've seen at a conference. Last but not least, having a female Wikipedian, amazing storyteller and PhD candidate in comparative history of religions as a guide on the Sunday tour to Jerusalem was possibly the best tribute to the resources we have in our community.
Here are some highlights from the conference:
[edit]Strategy and product development
I spoke to several people about how we make decisions on new features or large-scale experiments at WMF and on the need for the community to trust us while we run these experiments. This was also, incidentally, a point explicitly made by Jimbo in his closing remarks and it was really good to hear him mention this. I heard people frustrated by not being adequately listened to for their contribution to the product development or strategic planning. We should find better ways to listen to our community without necessarily making our product development an unmanageable form of radical participatory design. We should tap into the strategy wiki as a repository of ideas and try to better connect them to our current agenda. We should allow people to experiment more without relying on WMF to do so (see below for some ideas on how to make this happen). The strategy planning is over and we currently don't have a solution to harness the creative and intellectual potential of our community on an ongoing basis: that's another source of concern. Apart from this, one of the big takeaways from the conference was the fact that I think we managed to persuade our community that experimenting with new forms of social engagement does not mean turning Wikimedia into Facebook and I was glad to see a broad support to our work from different parties (editors, chapter members, board members).
[edit]Wikipedia as a platform/decentralizing innovation
Diederik, Ryan Lane and myself hosted a panel on how to open up Wikipedia's data by allowing third parties to not only reuse our contents but also to build real applications on top of these data. We gave a short presentation of what a relatively modest allocation of effort to support OpenID and OAuth could produce in terms of positively disruptive experimentation and decentralized innovation. This would allow WMF to focus on core projects and anybody else to develop new applications for our community and to explore collaborative models that are relevant to our mission but we currently cannot support because of limited internal resources. On my way back from Wikimania I discussed these ideas with many WMF people to find out that there would be some large internal support for this if we put together a proposal: that's currently in the pipeline.
[edit]Expert participation
I presented the early results from the expert participation survey (a collaboration with Daniel Mietchen, Giota Alevizou and some external researchers in Germany and the UK) and I got a lot of valuable feedback in 1:1 conversations after the talk. People involved in the higher education program were particularly excited at finding ways to engage with researchers and academics, outside of the classroom. Cheryl Moi, one of the campus ambassadors for the education program, was recently contacted by people at the National Academy of Science and we are now considering whether we should start a program similar to the Wikipedian in Residence initiative to increase the integration between scientific institutions and Wikimedia (expanding on Daniel'sWiR model).
[edit]Source-centric collaboration
I had 1:1 discussions on collaboration centered on sources with a bunch of people (including Andrew Lih, Benjamin Mako Hill, Heather Ford and Achal Prabhala). I am putting together some ideas partly based on these conversations and partly based on existing projects, on how to better support the selection, evaluation and discussion of sources that are cited in Wikipedia articles.
[edit]Research outreach
I participated in Daniel's presentation on open access/open data and participated in a panel moderated by folks from Wikimedia Germany about EU-funded research consortia and Wikimedia'sparticipation in research projects. It was great to hear that chapters are starting to join research consortia as partners and we discussed the barriers they are currently facing when they are approached by research groups. I gave an overview of what the Foundation (and RCom in particular) is doing to strengthen ties with the academic community (via the Research Index, the open data project, the Research Newsletter, the research fellowships etc). My feeling is that these initiatives were really well received but we should put more effort into disseminating them.
Hey guys!
There is another project looking to perform subject recruitment that needs
our assistance.
It looks like the researchers are looking to contact new
article creators with different message styles to detect a causal
relationship in changes to editor behavior.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Effects_of_Feedback_on_Participatio…<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Effects_of_Feedback_on_Participatio…>
Wikipedia<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Effects_of_Feedback_on_Participatio…>
I'll be moving my comments and questions to the project talk page, so please
continue any discussion there.
-Aaron
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Haiyi Zhu <haiyiz(a)cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 4:47 PM
Subject: Re: Conducting Experiments on Effects of Messages in Wikipedia
To: Aaron Halfaker <aaron.halfaker(a)gmail.com>
Cc: Robert Kraut <robert.kraut(a)cmu.edu>, nkittur <nkittur(a)cs.cmu.edu>, Amy X
Zhang <amyz(a)andrew.cmu.edu>, Jenny He <jipingh(a)andrew.cmu.edu>
Hi Aaron
We have created a project page for the experiment we would like to do.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Effects_of_Feedback_on_Participatio…
We are ready for review. Would you please help us get the ball rolling?
Thanks a lot!!
Haiyi
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 8:23 AM, Aaron Halfaker <aaron.halfaker(a)gmail.com>wrote:
> Haiyi,
>
> This study sounds like it would be relevant if submitted to the Wikimedia
> Research Committee(http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Committee) for
> review as a Subject Recruitment request(
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Subject_recruitment). I think
> this should be an excellent venue for feedback, and if things go well, a
> go-ahead/endorsement from the committee. You'll have to create a project
> page (see the form on
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Subject_recruitment) and then let
> me know when you are ready for review and I can get the ball rolling.
>
> The review is relatively unstructured and consists primarily of questions
> and requests raised on the talk page.
>
> Let me know if you have questions.
>
> -Aaron
>
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:13 AM, Haiyi Zhu <haiyiz(a)cs.cmu.edu> wrote:
>
>> Hi Aaron,
>>
>> This is Haiyi Zhu from Carnegie Mellon University. I am working with Bob
>> Kraut and Niki Kittur. I read your work about the effects of revert in
>> Wikipedia. That is very interesting. Also congratulations on getting the
>> summer intern job in Wikipedia.
>>
>> We have been planning on conducting an experiment to investigate the
>> effects of messages on participation in Wikipedia. We are wondering if there
>> is any appropriate place in Wikipedia website for us to post our plan of
>> experiments and get feedback from Wikipedia foundations and experienced
>> Wikipedians. It would be really helpful if you could point us to the right
>> place.
>>
>> I also attach the details of our experiments.
>>
>> Thanks for your help!
>> Haiyi
>>
>>
>> 1. Purpose of the study
>>
>> Wikipedia is one of the most successful examples of social production
>> online, and the key components to its continued success is maintaining a
>> large number of contributions made by a large and diverse community of
>> editors. The quality of Wikipedia articles is also maintained by its
>> community of editors through shared leadership behaviors, which are
>> leadership behaviors that come from all members at all levels (e.g. all
>> Wikipedia users), not only members in a defined leadership position (e.g.
>> Wikipedia administrators). Shared leadership behaviors in Wikipedia include,
>> but are not limited to, giving positive comments to a contributor for
>> creating a well-written new article (positive task-based message),
>> criticisms or reprimands to a contributor for not complying to Wikipedia
>> guidelines (negative task-based message), giving directions to correct an
>> error (directive task-based message). All of these aforementioned messages
>> could be written in a manner that is sociable and person-focused--friendly,
>> supportive and caring, and seeks to retain relationships with others, or not
>> sociable. Past research has shown that person-focused leadership was
>> effective in motivating users to contribute more, while negative messages
>> lead to decrease in motivation (Effectiveness of Shared Leadership, CSCW,
>> 2012, under review,
>> http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~haiyiz/ttt/SharedLeadership_fifthpdf.pdf).
>> Therefore, we are interested in learning how task-based messages (positive,
>> negative, directive) with a sociable(person-focused) component would effect
>> Wikipedia users' contributions.
>>
>> We will test how receiving the different types of messages (positive
>> task-based, negative task-based, or directive message) with and without a
>> sociable component, as well as the recipient's level of experience will
>> influence a recipient's future contributions to Wikipedia. We will do so by
>> having researchers post messages on the recipients' Wikipedia User Talk
>> page, and then we will track the recipients' level of contribution over
>> time.
>>
>> 2. Research procedures:
>>
>> The research procedure will not require any extra effort and activity by
>> the participants, other than their usual participation on Wikipedia. The
>> time period of this experiment will take place from July 1st to August. The
>> location will take place online on the Wikipedia website.
>>
>> We will be posting experimentally altered messages to the participants'
>> Wikipedia User Talk page, which is public and can be seen by anyone. The
>> experiment researchers will identify a list of newly created articles that
>> are two to ten days old. We will only post a response to a newly-created
>> article that is at least two days old, in accordance to Wikipedia's policy
>> of "don't bite the newcomers" (
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BITE).
>>
>> We will then categorize the new articles as containing errors or not
>> containing errors according to a set of criteria determined by Wikipedia
>> guidelines. The creator of the new article containing errors would randomly
>> be assigned to receive a positive task-based message, negative task-based
>> message, directive message, or non task-based message, and each type of
>> message would also be randomly assigned to be sociable or not sociable. The
>> same assignment procedure will be given to the creator of an article without
>> errors, with the exclusion of negative task-based feedback.
>>
>> Also, all messages sent by the experimenter will be prepared beforehand in
>> templates (see the section 4) , which are designed to mimic messages sent by
>> other Wikipedia users, and therefore the risk associated with these messages
>> are no greater than the risks experienced by a Wikipedia user during
>> everyday interactions on Wikipedia. We will then extract the users' activity
>> data after one to two weeks in order to examine the users level of
>> contribution; we will also extract some user info, such as date of first
>> edit, in order to assess the recipients' level of experience. However, no
>> personal information that could be used to identify the identity of the
>> recipient will be extracted, used, or recorded in this experiment.
>>
>> 3. We need your help!
>> If you are interested in our research project and would like to
>> participate in our experiment and send out messages, please sign here.
>>
>> 4. Appendix: example messages
>>
>> 4.1 Each message has some base, non-task focused/non-social content.
>> I see you created the new article [[“{{{{contrib}}}}]]. New articles are
>> typically reviewed by users on the [[Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol|‘New Article
>> Patrol’]]. If your article has not been reviewed, it should happen soon.
>> Thank you, ~~~~
>> I see that you recently created the new article [[“{{{{contrib}}}}]]. As
>> you know, Wikipedia is always a [work in progress]. So thank you, ~~~~
>> I see that you recently created the new article [[contrib]]. It would
>> probably fit into project [[Project]]. (although a good suggestion, this
>> message is not yet compatible with the various categories,
>>
>> 4.2. The social messages have social content in the salutation before the
>> base message and in the closing after the base message:
>>
>> Salutations:
>>
>> Happy Monday, {{SUBST:BASEPAGENAME}}!
>> Greetings {{SUBST:BASEPAGENAME}}!
>> Hi {{SUBST:BASEPAGENAME}}!
>> Welcome {{SUBST:BASEPAGENAME}}! (new users only)
>>
>>
>> Closing:
>>
>> Happy editing! Hope your day is going well and you are having fun. ~~~
>> It’s nice to see you editing! Hope you’ll stick around! ~~~~
>> Have a fun and productive day! Cheers, ~~~~
>> Let me know if there is any way I can help. Hope you sill stick around.
>> Thanks, Amy ~~~~
>> Let me know if I can be of any help and I’ll do my best! ~~~~
>>
>>
>>
>> 4.3. The positive feedback message includes some general positive comment
>> and an article specific comment
>>
>> General: This article looks very well put together. [ Point to a specific
>> praiseworthy element , based on article content.]
>>
>> Specific:
>>
>> The image greatly improves the article.
>>
>> The citations and references seem to abide to Wikipedia’s referencing
>> guidelines.
>>
>> There is a good number of citations and references.
>> The content seems pretty substantial for a new article.
>> The content seems well-organized.
>> The information is presented clearly and is easy to understand.
>> The layout of the article makes it very clear.
>> The headings and sections seem appropriate.
>>
>> 4.4. The negative feedback message includes some general negative comment
>> and an article specific comment
>>
>> General: However, I noticed the article contains errors. [Point to a
>> specific error, based on article content.]
>>
>> Specific:
>>
>> The article contains spelling/grammatical error’s (specifics)
>> The article currently does not contain any [[WP:REF|references]].
>> The article’s image currently does not contain any captions.
>> The references in the article do not follow Wikipedia guidelines. There is
>> a tutorial on formatting citations at [[Wikipedia:Referencing]]
>> The article does not contain any [[Help:Link|Wikilinks]], and so doesn’t
>> follow [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking)|Wikipedia style guidelines]].
>> The article does not contain in-line citations, and so doesn’t follow
>> [[WP:REF|Wikipedia style guidelines]].
>> The article is confusing. I do not understand what you are trying to
>> say.
>> The article’s footer sections are not in the [[WP:FOOTER|standard order]].
>>
>>
>> 4.5. The directive message asks the editor to do a specific comment on an
>> article related to the one they created.
>>
>> Other sample tasks:
>>
>> It would be great if you could also improve the related article __.
>> It would be great if you could also [[Help:Files|upload a picture]] for
>> the related article__.
>> It would be great if you could also [[WP:REF|add references]] to the
>> related article __.
>> It would be great if you could also create new articles for [the red links
>> that do not lead to another article yet].
>> It would be great if you could also [[Talk:__|give feedback]] for the
>> related article __.
>> It would be great if you could also clean-up the related article __.
>> It would be great if you could also [[WP:MOS|Wikify]] the related article
>> __.
>> It would be great if you could also help merge the related article __.
>> It would be great if you could also participate in the [discussion] about
>> deleting __.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
All,
I am back in the office after Wikimania, where I had a really great time and the chance to meet many of you. I had lots of great discussions with community members and researchers and I will share some thoughts on RCom-relevant matters that emerged during the conference. Before starting a post-Wikimania thread, I'd like to highlight two issues that emerged as part of the review of the CMU proposal recently posted on Meta:
1) What's the role of RCom when reviewing these requests? We need to define explicitly what it means for RCom to "review" (as opposed to "approve" these requests), especially in those cases that do not need a direct decision from WMF. See: http://bit.ly/rgchWQ
2) Under what conditions can WMF claim reuse rights? We have to rethink the application of the "reuse rights" clause as it obviously does not apply to proposals that seek RCom feedback to review subject recruitment methods, but with no direct allocation of WMF effort/resources (thanks Aaron for bringing this up). Daniel, I think this is something you should lead as part of our OA/open data policy.
Aaron and I are starting to prepare the agenda for the next RCom meeting, we will send a link shortly: stay tuned!
Dario
Dear all,
I always thought that the role of the Rcom would be not only managing the
incoming requests for research (in a broad sense), but also identifying
what research results we would like to have in order to facilitate the
future development of the WMF projects.
Recently, AFT has been deployed on every article in en.wp, which caused
some controversy. Users are unsure on what the rankings actually mean (for
instance, if the readers actually answer the questions they are asked, or
instead give rankings based on their perception of the subject; whether it
would be a good idea to invite the readers also to provide text input, and
a number of other issues).
To me it looks like a good test case. It would be good for us to have some
research results on the issue, and so far (from what I know) nobody
volunteered to perform such research. Should WMF then indicate that they
want these results? Probably at this stage we are not prepared to order it
(I mean to pay for it), but it could be broadly advertised in certain
places.
Just to make sure, what I asked is not one but two separate questions:
1) Do we (badly) want the research on AFT?
Even if the answer is no (not needed, too early, unrealistic etc), it
makes sense in my opinion to discuss another question:
2) Is is appropriate and/or meaningful for us as Rcom to compile a
priority list of needed research topics and try to advertise the necessity
and urgency of research carried out on these topics?
Note that even if the answer to 1 is yes the answer to 2 can still be no
(as a matter of principle).
Cheers
Yaroslav
We have another research request via the English Wikipedia mailing list.
WereSpielChequers
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bo Xu <boxu70(a)yahoo.com.cn>
Date: 2 August 2011 07:27
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Invitation to Participate in Wikipedia Survey
To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Dear Wikipedian,
We, Prof. Bo Xu at Fudan University in China and Prof. Dahui Li at
University of Minnesota Duluth, are interested in why and how people
contribute to Wikipedia. You could make an important contribution to
this research by completing a questionnaire at
http://labovitz.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_3h4hthRyOWKxZVa. The survey
is completely voluntary. All the data will be kept confidential. Your
assistance in answering this questionnaire is highly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Bo Xu
School of Management
Fudan University
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l