Hi Dario, Nice report. I have some questions related to the annual survey modules. Does Analytics have any ideas to contribute to how to stabilize and increase the population of active editors and to improve editor gender diversity? There were relevant blog posts at [1] and [2]. I would like to hear how data and analysis of that survey have been used in areas outside of VE development and any other ideas Analytics has about improving population size and gender diversity. Were there any follow ups to the "annual" editor survey from 2011? A blog post [3] says the survey was anticipated to be annual. There is a page about a 2012 annual survey on Meta [4] but no results are posted and it appears no follow up surveys were completed in 2012 or 2013. [5] Thanks, Pine [1] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/06/29/editor-survey-lack-of-time-and-unplea… [2] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/04/27/nine-out-of-ten-wikipedians-continue-… [3] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/12/07/launching-the-second-annual-wikipedia… [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_Editor_Survey_2012#Resul… [5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Projects From: dtaraborelli(a)wikimedia.org Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 17:25:51 -0800 To: analytics-internal(a)lists.wikimedia.org; wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wiki-research-l] Notes from the wiki research session at CSCW '14 All, these are highlights from a session the Wikimedia Foundation’s Research & Data team hosted at CSCW ’14 in Baltimore. The audience was a group of researchers either working on Wikipedia/Wikimedia-related research projects or interested in learning about opportunities to collaborate with the Foundation. Feel free to get in touch if you have any questions/comments.ContactDario Taraborelli - dario(a)wikimedia.orgAaron Halfaker - ahalfaker(a)wikimedia.orgJonathan Morgan - jmorgan(a)wikimedia.org IRC: irc://irc.freenode.net/wikimedia-research (webclient) Mailing list: wiki-research-l (mailing list) ResourcesWe gave a short overview of existing resources of potential interest to Wikipedia/Wikimedia researchers: OAuth allows 3rd-party software to edit Wikipedia on behalf of a Wikipedia editor and it’s a (mostly untapped) opportunity to run experimental research or test new interfaces targeted at Wikipedians. See: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:OAuth#Using_OAuthData portal summarizes data sources that are currently available to researchers and app developers. See: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:DataWikimedia Research Newsletter: A monthly overview reviewing or summarizing recent research (contributions are welcome, please contact Dario if you’re interested in contributing) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter Subject recruitment. Aaron and Dario have managed a process for documenting and vetting subject recruitment occurring on Wikimedia projects. This process was set in place to help resolve the tension between researchers’ need to recruit subjects and editors’ desire to not be bothered. The process involves a public discussion and mentorship in order to ensure that proposed studies that affect editors are well documented, are addressing original questions and do not result in unnecessary disruption of wiki work. This is a service we’ve been providing on a volunteer basis as members of the Research Committee, it’s meant to offer support to researchers but doesn’t eliminate the risk that an account used for recruitment purposes might be blocked by an administrator. IRBs and minors. One of the issues that we discussed is dealing with IRB & other ethics boards’ requirements when studies may result in interaction with minors. Aaron <ahalfaker(a)wikimedia.org> is willing to discuss the issue with researchers and university staff upon request. Annual survey modules. Interest was expressed in exploring strategies for expanding the annual editor/reader survey with new questions contributed by researchers. At this point (March 2014) we cannot commit to any such project, but in general there is potential for cooperations between WMF and academic researchers in this area. Interested parties should contact Tilman Bayer (tbayer at wikimedia dot org) who has been conducting the last WMF editor survey and can provide information about these surveys (methodology, results, available data etc.) and their calendar. WikiResearch Workshop at CSCW 2015. We discussed planning a workshop for CSCW next year. Anyone who is interested in collaborating, please contact us. Details are TBD, but our general goals include: increase awareness of the public data resources that are availablehighlight research areas that are ripe for investigation, esp. where WMF could benefit from the resultsget a better sense of what kind of data resources (and/or what data formats) researchers would like to havebrainstorm a (lightweight, ethical, practical) model for partnership between WMF and academic research orgs that want access to certain non-public data Wiki Research Hackathons. On Nov. 9th, 2013, we held our first global research hackathon (announcement). We had universities and other local meetups from around the world connect via Google Hangout to share ideas, data and presentations geared toward datasets, code and other resources. We’ll be planning another hackathon in the coming months. You can help by hosting or attending your own local event. Please contact us if you’re interested. Public listing on WMF’s strategic research questions. We discussed the potential for the Wikimedia Foundation to list out key areas of research that we are interested in. This is something we are keenly interested in and you should expect to hear from us soon through wiki-research-l and @WikiResearch. Tweet @WikiResearch. We maintain a relatively high-visibility twitter account from which we tweet about new research, data, and other initiatives. If you tweet about your own wiki-related work @WikiResearch, we will retweet it so long as it’s relevant. We will also experiment with the use of this Twitter handle to increase the visibility of libraries and analytics tools to support Wikipedia research. Internships/grad student residencies. We talked briefly about research collaborations, internships and other forms of work opportunities at WMF. We’re actively exploring possibilities and will broadcast details through wiki-research-l and @WikiResearch when we know more. We’re hiring. We are looking to expand the research team at WMF, if you are interested in working with us keep an eye on wiki-research-l and @WikiResearch for job openings or contact us off-list. _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Hoi Dario, When you look at the statistics [1], you find that the number of page views in English is going down faster than in the other languages combined. You also find that the percentage of readers for the top ten Wikipedias in size is slowly but surely decreasing (now at 88.94%). How can we decrease this percentage even more without sacrificing the number of page views for the top 10? Has there been any research in how we can stimulate the growth in Wikipedias that are not part of the top 10%. Do we know to what extend the English Wikipedia model works for these other languages or is a hindrance. Do we know what people are looking for in the smaller Wikipedias and do we know what they do / do not find. Do we know how people find articles in those languages, does this work in the same way as it does for English? Is it possible that we have to cultivate contacts with the local "Googles" in order to grow attention for what we have to offer. Do we know what the effect is of the new search engine that is much better at providing results in other scripts? Do we know to what extend inter language links are created and, do we know how this has changed since the move to Wikidata? Dario, can you please tell us to what extend the other languages are studied at all? Do we know what effect they have? Do we know about the experience of these Wikipedias locally? Do we care about the typography in other scripts? Do we know about the NPOV in the small projects? Do we know about gender diversity in the smaller languages. How about cultural bias and how does this compare to the cultural bias in the big projects? Dario there is so much that we do not know, have not touched. Why study more of what has been studied to death? Thanks, GerardM On 6 March 2014 02:25, Dario Taraborelli <dtaraborelli(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: