RCom-l September 2010

rcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org

13 participants
14 discussions

Areas of interest
by Erik Moeller 03 Sep '10

03 Sep '10

Following Daniel Mietchen's suggestion, I've moved the notes from the Etherpad here. If you haven't yet expressed areas of interest, I think it would be good to do so (and feel free to expand the list): http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_Committee/Areas_of_interest -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

1 0

Scope of the Research Committee
by Yaroslav M. Blanter 03 Sep '10

03 Sep '10

Dear All, this is just to start the discussion. Below I copy the ideas some of us shared at http://eiximenis.wikimedia.org/ResearchCommitteeBios , and also the original functions compiled by Erik. Functions: The committee's core function includes: * developing policy around researcher permissions for non-public data * supporting the development of subject recruitment processes * reviewing research projects when conflicts-of-interest arise * articulating and channeling requests for data and technical resources * helping to formulate the key strategic research objectives of the Wikimedia movement (see strategy.wikimedia.org) * helping to formulate small tactical experiments related to Wikimedia's strategic goals * developing an open access policy as a requirement for significant support from the Wikimedia Foundation * helping create a "starter kit" for researchers to avoid duplication of effort Opinions on the scope: What possible subcommittees/workgroups to form? * Strategy * Data * Ethical review * Subject recruitment * Code * Tests * Funding * Publishing * Interface Research [John Riedl]: My bias is that we should focus on creating workgroups in areas that are exploring research that is particularly hard to carry out in the current Wikipedia. One way to identify these areas is to look for types of Wikipedia research that seems like it would be very valuable but that is seldom done. Two examples of this type of research are: controlled experiments with hundreds of users, and experiments in new Wikipedia interfaces. [Daniel Mietchen] I wonder how many subcommittees make sense given the size of the committee. Prioritizing is necessary, though, and I think substructures will naturally flow from there. {Yaroslav Blanter] I guess we should understand 1) how meny members we are; 2) define the scope. Then we can easily decide on the number of committees and their scopes [Milos Rancic] From the Wikimedia perspective, I would add that we need at least three general tasks, which could be handled by listed committees or by new one(s): (1) How to keep community healthy? (2) How to improve existing projects? and (3) Which new projects are needed in the corpus of free knowledge? denny: Milos, you talking about Wiki(m/p)edia in general, or about research projects in particular? I also agree, we can only do so much with the size of the committee. Also, our task is obviously not to do the research ourselve, but provide the interface between Wikimedia and the wider research community. [Milos Rancic] Denny, I am talking about research goals. It looks too general, but as a Wikimedia bureaucrat, I would like to get scientific answers to as many as possible questions related to those three general questions. Moved at the level of particular researches, research which would state that "edit" button should stay at some position because it would improve participation -- would be a perfect example of research which aim to cover the part of the second question (How to improve existing projects?). [Yaroslav Blanter] Sorry, I was a bit out of business for the weekend. I in general agree with Milosh and with denny at the same time - we need to understand what we can actually do with 8 committee members. Should we first discuss what RESEARCH means? I guess there are several activities in and around WMF projects, which are covered by this term and are in some or other way in the scope of our committee, in no particular order: (1) original research performed by WMF projects (there are only two where OR is not prohibited - Wikibooks and Wikiversity), shoud there be some guidelines? (2) Scientific research on WMF projects (probably mainly Wikipedia) performed by either WMF-related or independent researchers; (3) Non-WMF-related research performed by research institutions: Here our business is only interaction between WMF projects and researchers at these institutions. Do we want to handle all three? Is there is smth else which I overlooked? P.S. We started a serious discussion and I am not sure this is the best interface. I believe Erik promised to open a mailing list, may be all this can be moved into the list. [denny] I agree with Yaroslav on maybe waiting for the list. These wiki-like interfaces are known to be not the best for discussions like these <reference needed>. ;) [WereSpielChequers] I'm with Milos on the need for research to inform decision making on existing projects, there have been a number of decisions where it would have been really helpful to have a researcher look at the stats and prepare a report to inform the discussion. Also I'm with Daniel on thinking that it is a bit early to be forming subcommittes. I'm hoping tha part of our role will be in advising researchers where there are alternatives that are acceptable to both researchers and the community and part will be explaining to other researchers why some things are not acceptable to the community. For example in the last year we have had one research project where someone was vandalising articles in order to see how effective our anti-vandalism efforts were, and another was adding fake spam links to see how many people would click through to a spam site; The first could either have been done as an audit of existing articles to see how many were vandalised, or by analysing vandalsim reversions to see how long it took to spot the vandalism. I'm not convinced that there is an alternative way to do the spam test, but as Wikipedia is unlikely to be taking advertising in the foreseeable future and as the willingness to click on a link is at least partially dependent on the trust one places in the website where you see that link, then I don't see the value in testing how well spam works in Wikipedia. Cheers Yaroslav

4 3

IRC meetings
by Yaroslav M. Blanter 02 Sep '10

02 Sep '10

Dear all, concerning the technical issues: I am normally not using IRC, and I very much prefer skype conferences. If I am the only one I am willing to compromise on this, but we may want to discuss the preferences of the committee members. Cheers Yaroslav

8 9

supporting the development of subject recruitment processes
by WereSpielChequers 01 Sep '10

01 Sep '10

Hi, My take on "supporting the development of subject recruitment processes" is that it will involve setting guidelines as to how Wikimedians can be approached and asked to take part in research. Setting such guidelines would be of benefit to researchers who want to approach groups of wikimedians asking them to respond to a survey without being blocked for spam, and Wikimedians who want to opt out from such research, or at least to know that someone has checked out the researcher and established that they are legit. WereSpielChequers On 1 September 2010 08:15, Fuster, Mayo <Mayo.Fuster(a)eui.eu> wrote: > Hola! > > IRC or skype is fine with me. I am based in Europe hour line. > > Like Milos, I don't fully understand either what this means: "supporting the > development of subject recruitment processes". In any case, I added my name > and priorities to the functions list. > > Welcome to everybody! Mayo > > «·´`·.(*·.¸(`·.¸ ¸.·´)¸.·*).·´`·» > «·´¨*·¸¸« Mayo Fuster Morell ».¸.·*¨`·» > «·´`·.(¸.·´(¸.·* *·.¸)`·.¸).·´`·» > > Research Digital Commons Governance: http://www.onlinecreation.info > European University Institute - Phd Candidate > School of information Berkeley Visiting researcher > Phone Italy: (New!) 0039-3312805010 or 0039-0558409982 > Phone Spanish State: 0034-648877748 > E-mail: mayo.fuster(a)eui.eu > Skype: mayoneti > Identi.ca: Mayo > Postal address: Badia Fiesolana - Via dei Roccettini 9, I-50014 San Domenico > di Fiesole (FI) - Italy > Fax [+39] 055 4685 201 > > > > -----Missatge original----- > De: rcom-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org en nom de Aaron Halfaker > Enviat el: dc. 01/09/2010 00:33 > Per a: The Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee mailing list > Tema: Re: [RCom-l] IRC meetings > > I'm strongly in favor of voice conferencing of some sort (Skype or > otherwise) due to the difference in the amount of time text and speech take > to convey ideas. For example, recently, I have been exit-interviewing some > enwp editors. Of those interviews I've done over the phone or skype, I was > able to complete the entire question set in about 30 minutes. Whereas, the > same question set took about 4 hours to complete over gtalk and IRC. In > other words, conveying roughly the same ideas over text took about 8 times > longer than voice. > > For the sake of keeping our synchronous meetings both brief and effective, I > feel strongly that we should pursue some voice communication system. > > On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 2:33 AM, WereSpielChequers < > werespielchequers(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> I've experience of both IRC and Skype conferencing and I very much >> prefer skype, though if we are all on it would help to have a chair >> and a text channel. >> >> We need to decide whether the call is going to be recorded and or >> streamed. >> >> Also before we decide to communicate in realtime as well as online, >> can we establish whether there are common times when we are all >> available? This shouldn't be too difficult if we don't have anyone >> West of California or East of the Euphrates - are any of us in >> Australasia, east or southern asia? >> >> >> >> On 28 August 2010 01:07, Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > Just to say that I am not likely to be able to participate in >> > voice/video conversations. I can try, but I am quite unsure about >> > being able to have voice connection because of internet access >> > quality. Nominally, it should work fine (ADSL 4Mbps/512Kbps), but the >> > connection quality is not perfect, at least in the sense of skyping. >> > Usually, I have a couple of interruptions during one 30-60 minutes >> > session, which is OK if it is one-to-one communication, but could be >> > very painful with many people in communication. >> > >> > But, all in all, I don't have any strong argument against textual >> > skyping. I don't know how WebEx would work on my computer, while it >> > sounds interesting. And, of course, I prefer IRC. >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > RCom-l mailing list >> > RCom-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> RCom-l mailing list >> RCom-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l >> > > > _______________________________________________ > RCom-l mailing list > RCom-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l > >

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

RCom-l September 2010