Hello everyone - apologies for cross-posting! *TL;DR*: We would like your
feedback on our Metrics Kit project. Please have a look and comment on
The Wikimedia Foundation's Trust and Safety team, in collaboration with the
Community Health Initiative, is working on a Metrics Kit designed to
measure the relative "health" of various communities that make up the
The ultimate outcome will be a public suite of statistics and data looking
at various aspects of Wikimedia project communities. This could be used by
both community members to make decisions on their community direction and
Wikimedia Foundation staff to point anti-harassment tool development in the
We have a set of metrics we are thinking about including in the kit,
ranging from the ratio of active users to active administrators,
administrator confidence levels, and off-wiki factors such as freedom to
participate. It's ambitious, and our methods of collecting such data will
Right now, we'd like to know:
* Which metrics make sense to collect? Which don't? What are we missing?
* Where would such a tool ideally be hosted? Where would you normally look
for statistics like these?
* We are aware of the overlap in scope between this and Wikistats <
https://stats.wikimedia.org/v2/#/all-projects> — how might these tools
Your opinions will help to guide this project going forward. We'll be
reaching out at different stages of this project, so if you're interested
in direct messaging going forward, please feel free to indicate your
interest by signing up on the consultation page.
Looking forward to reading your thoughts.
P.S.: Please feel free to CC me in conversations that might happen on this
 What do we mean by "health"? There is no standard definition of what
makes a Wikimedia community "healthy", but there are many indicators that
highlight where a wiki is doing well, and where it could improve. This
project aims to provide a variety of useful data points that will inform
community decisions that will benefit from objective data.
*Joe Sutherland* (he/him or they/them)
Trust and Safety Specialist
The next Research Showcase will be live-streamed next Wednesday, September
18, at 9:30 AM PT/16:30 UTC. This will be the new time going forward for
Research Showcases in order to give more access to other timezones.
YouTube stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDhAnHrkBks
As usual, you can join the conversation on IRC at #wikimedia-research. You
can also watch our past research showcases here:
This month's presentations:
Citation Needed: A Taxonomy and Algorithmic Assessment of Wikipedia's
By Miriam Redi, Research, Wikimedia Foundation
Among Wikipedia's core guiding principles, verifiability policies have a
particularly important role. Verifiability requires that information
included in a Wikipedia article be corroborated against reliable secondary
sources. Because of the manual labor needed to curate and fact-check
Wikipedia at scale, however, its contents do not always evenly comply with
these policies. Citations (i.e. reference to external sources) may not
conform to verifiability requirements or may be missing altogether,
potentially weakening the reliability of specific topic areas of the free
encyclopedia. In this project
we aimed to provide an empirical characterization of the reasons why and
how Wikipedia cites external sources to comply with its own verifiability
guidelines. First, we constructed a taxonomy of reasons why inline
citations are required by collecting labeled data from editors of multiple
Wikipedia language editions. We then collected a large-scale crowdsourced
dataset of Wikipedia sentences annotated with categories derived from this
taxonomy. Finally, we designed and evaluated algorithmic models to
determine if a statement requires a citation, and to predict the citation
reason based on our taxonomy. We evaluated the robustness of such models
across different classes of Wikipedia articles of varying quality, as well
as on an additional dataset of claims annotated for fact-checking purposes.
Redi, M., Fetahu, B., Morgan, J., & Taraborelli, D. (2019, May). Citation
Needed: A Taxonomy and Algorithmic Assessment of Wikipedia's Verifiability.
In The World Wide Web Conference (pp. 1567-1578). ACM.
Patrolling on Wikipedia
By Jonathan T. Morgan, Research, Wikimedia Foundation
I will present initial findings from an ongoing research study
patrolling workflows on Wikimedia projects. Editors patrol recent pages and
edits to ensure that Wikimedia projects maintains high quality as new
content comes in. Patrollers revert vandalism and review newly-created
articles and article drafts. Patrolling of new pages and edits is vital
work. In addition to making sure that new content conforms to Wikipedia
project policies, patrollers are the first line of defense against
disinformation, copyright infringement, libel and slander, personal
threats, and other forms of vandalism on Wikimedia projects. This research
project is focused on understanding the needs, priorities, and workflows of
editors who patrol new content on Wikimedia projects. The findings of this
research can inform the development of better patrolling tools as well as
non-technological interventions intended to support patrollers and the
activity of patrolling.
Janna Layton (she, her)
Administrative Assistant - Product & Technology
Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
as https://www.python.org/doc/sunset-python-2/ says Python 2 is finally
going EOL on January 1st. We (as Analytics team) have a lot of packages
deployed on stat/notebook/hadoop hosts via puppet that should be removed,
but before doing so we'd need to know if anybody of you is currently using
a Python-2-only environment to work/research/test/etc... If so, please
comment in the following task so we'll discuss your use case and possibly
find a Python-3 solution: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T204737
In the task we are going to add info about common packages that we know
(keras, tensorflow, pytorch, etc..) to help you migrate to Python 3 as
quickly and painlessly as possible, so if you are interested please
subscribe to the task.
Thanks in advance!
Luca (on behalf of the Analytics team)
Hey folks, I'm helping Rebecca Maung (rmaung(a)wikimedia.org) distribute this
request. Her words below:
The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in the annual
Community Insights survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your
work on- and off-wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the
future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future
work of the Wikimedia Foundation.
If you are a volunteer developer, and have contributed code to any pieces
of MediaWiki, gadgets, or tools, please complete the survey. It is
available in various languages and will take between 15 and 25 minutes to
Follow this link to the survey:
If you have seen a similar message elsewhere and have already taken the
Community Insights survey, please do not take it twice.
You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see
how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support contributors like
you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this
privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find
more information about this survey.
If you need additional help, send an email to surveys(a)wikimedia.org.
(Note: This is only an early heads-up, to be prepared. Google Code-in
has NOT been announced yet, but last year, GCI mentors asked for more
time in advance to identify tasks to mentor. Here you are. :)
* You have small, self-contained bugs you'd like to see fixed?
* Your documentation needs specific improvements?
* Your user interface has some smaller design issues?
* Your Outreachy/Summer of Code project welcomes small tweaks?
* You'd enjoy helping someone port your template to Lua?
* Your gadget code uses some deprecated API calls?
* You have tasks in mind that welcome some research?
Google Code-in (GCI) is an annual contest for 13-17 year old students.
GCI 2019 has not yet been announced but usually takes place from late
October to December. It is not only about coding: We also need tasks
about design, docs, outreach/research, QA.
Read https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Google_Code-in/Mentors , add
your name to the mentors table, and start tagging tasks in Wikimedia
Phabricator by adding the #gci-2019 project tag.
We will need MANY mentors and MANY tasks, otherwise we cannot make it.
Last year, 199 students successfully worked on 765 tasks supported by
39 mentors. For some achievements from the last round, see
Note that "beginner tasks" (e.g. "Set up Vagrant") and generic
tasks are very welcome (like "Choose and replace 2 uses of
Linker::link() from the list in T223010" style).
We also have more than 400 unassigned open #good-first-bug tasks:
Can and would you mentor some of these tasks in your area?
Please take a moment to find / update [Phabricator etc.] tasks in your
project(s) which would take an experienced contributor 2-3 hours. Read
, ask if you have any questions, and add your name to
Thanks (as we will not be able to run this without your help),
Andre Klapper (he/him) | Bugwrangler / Developer Advocate