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
email • facebook • twitter • 07796955572
133-135 Bethnal Green Road, E2 7DG
On 2 July 2014 10:15, Aaron Halfaker <aaron.halfaker(a)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 <hfordsa(a)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 <hanteng(a)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 <hfordsa(a)gmail.com>om>:
>>>
>>>> +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 <hanteng(a)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 <hfordsa(a)gmail.com>om>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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#.22Recommendi…
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Heather Ford
>>>>>> Oxford Internet Institute Doctoral Programme
>>>>>> EthnographyMatters | Oxford Digital Ethnography Group
>>>>>>
http://hblog.org | @hfordsa
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>>>>> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>>>> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>>> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org