Now that i understood. It was short, clear, and concise. Thank you
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Bob the Wikipedian <
bobthewikipedian(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I read it several times before figuring out (maybe?)
that this is a
request that update the list of questions at [[WP:WD]]. That page looks
rather...well, "outdated" is an understatement...
However, it would seem to me that a researcher would generate questions
to research by looking at the discussion sections of recent papers on
the topic of Wikipedia. Usually in the discussion section, the author
mentions something like "more research needs to be done on /x/ /topic/."
God bless,
Bob
On 3/14/2011 11:28 PM, Elias Friedman wrote:
Sad to say, I only read about a quarter of it
before I gave up too.
Sent from my Droid2
Elias Friedman A.S., CCEMT-P
אליהו מתתיהו בן צבי
elipongo(a)gmail.com
On Mar 15, 2011 12:25 AM, "I Love Plankton"<iloveplankton(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> TL;DR wall of text amirite?
>
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 9:40 PM, Chitu Okoli<Chitu.Okoli(a)concordia.ca
> wrote:
>
>> [Apologies for cross-posting; this same e-mail is being sent to
>> wikipedia-l, WikiEN-l and foundation-l]
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> We are a research group conducting a systematic literature review on
>> Wikipedia-related peer-reviewed academic studies published in the
English
>> language. (Although there are many
excellent studies in other
languages,
we
>> unfortunately do not have the resources to systematically review these
at
> any
kind of acceptable scholarly level. Also, our study is about
Wikipedia
> only, not about other Wikimedia Foundation
projects. However, we do
include
> studies about other language Wikipedias, as
long as the studies are
> published in English.) We have completed a search using many major
databases
>> of scholarly research. We've posted separate messages to
wiki-research-l
>
related to this literature review.
>
> We have identified over 2,100 peer-reviewed studies that have
"wikipedia",
> "wikipedian", or
"wikipedians" in their title, abstract or keywords. As
this
>> number of studies is far too large for conducting a review synthesis,
we
> have
decided to focus only on peer-reviewed journal publications and
> doctoral theses; we identified 638 such studies. In addition, we
identified
> around 1,500 peer-reviewed conference
articles.
>
> We hope that our review would provide useful insights for both
wikipedians
> and researchers. (Although we know that most
Wikipedia researchers are
also
> wikipedians, we define wikipedian or
"Wikipedia practitioner" here as
> someone involved in the Wikipedia project who is not also a scholarly
> researcher.) In particular, here is a list of some of the research
questions
> we are investigating in our review that are
particularly pertinent to
> wikipedians (you can check wiki-research-l for the full set of research
> questions):
>
> 1. What high-quality research has been conducted with Wikipedia as a
major
>> topic or data source? As mentioned in the introductory e-mail, we have
>> already identified over 2,100 studies, though we will only analyze 638
of
> them
in depth. We will group the articles by field of study.
>
> 2. What research questions have been asked by various sources, both
> academic scholarly and practitioner? We want to know both the subjects
that
>> the existing research has covered, and also catalogue key questions
that
>> practitioners would like to be answered,
whether or not academic
research
>> has broached these questions. Also, we
categorize the research
questions
>> based on their purposes.
>>
>> 6. What conclusions have been made from existing research? That is,
what
>> questions from RQ2 have been answered,
and what are these answers?
>>
>> 7. What questions from RQ2 are left unanswered? (These present
directions
> for
future research.)
>
>
> Regarding our RQ2, on the research questions that have been asked, we
want
>> to identify not only the research questions that we extract from the
>> articles, but also what questions are of interest that have not been
>> studied. For this, we have identified a few banks of Wikipedia-related
>> research questions.
>>
>> We are most of all interested in questions that wikipedians are asking,
>> other than what researchers are asking. There is an old list of
research
these
>> questions are about Wikimedia Foundation
projects in general, though
>> Wikipedia is of course included. Could you please review this list and
>> update that page directly with any additional questions? Alternately,
you
> could
reply us directly, and we could update the list.
>
> Another bank of questions we have identified is more directed towards
> academics and researchers:
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikidemia#Research_Quest…
.
> We have asked the wiki-research-l subscribers
to update that list. We
will
> draw from both lists for our bank of research
questions.
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
> Chitu Okoli, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada
> (
>
http://chitu.okoli.org/professional/open-content/wikipedia-and-open-content…
)
Arto Lanamäki, University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway
Mohamad Mehdi, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada
Mostafa Mesgari, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l