Hey folks,
There's a new study[1] seeking approval from RCom to engage in subject recruitment on English Wikipedia.
TL;DR:
- *Who:* PhD Student from University of Washington (with IRB approval) - *What:* Wants to understand the perspectives of female editors with regards to the experience of editing Wikipedia, dealing with masculine culture, etc. - *How:* Goal is 20 interviews. Starting with snowball sampling though informant Jonathan Morgan (a Learning Strategist @ the WMF) continuing with user talk page posts if snowballing is insufficient.
I've gone through the motions of ensuring that the study is well documented and I've started a straw poll at the bottom of the talk page[2]. Please take a look to see if I missed anything and add your vote. Thanks!
1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Women_and_Wikipedia 2. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Women_and_Wikipedia#Straw_poll...
-Aaron
Dear friends,
for some time already, I do not manage to find enough time to get engaged in the activities of this committee. Given my priorities in academic research, and the fact that the time pressure they generate is not going to get any lighter in the near future, I believe that the best thing to do is to withdraw from the Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee at this moment.
I have made changes to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_Committee to reflect my decision to withdraw; User: GoranM is now found in the "Former members" section.
I wish you all the best in you future work. Wikimedia Foundation spawned a set of magnificent ideas and projects. You are shaping the future. Keep up the good work!
Best, Goran S. Milovanović
P.S. If any of you have interests in human choice under risk and uncertainty, you might take a look at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2362756. The paper is currently under review.
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Aaron Halfaker aaron.halfaker@gmail.comwrote:
Hey folks,
There's a new study[1] seeking approval from RCom to engage in subject recruitment on English Wikipedia.
TL;DR:
- *Who:* PhD Student from University of Washington (with IRB approval)
- *What:* Wants to understand the perspectives of female editors with
regards to the experience of editing Wikipedia, dealing with masculine culture, etc.
- *How:* Goal is 20 interviews. Starting with snowball sampling
though informant Jonathan Morgan (a Learning Strategist @ the WMF) continuing with user talk page posts if snowballing is insufficient.
I've gone through the motions of ensuring that the study is well documented and I've started a straw poll at the bottom of the talk page[2]. Please take a look to see if I missed anything and add your vote. Thanks!
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Women_and_Wikipedia#Straw_poll...
-Aaron
RCom-l mailing list RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l
Hi everybody,
I received a few days ago a request to merge and redirect the almost inactive #wikimedia-rcom IRC channel to #wikimedia-research (a public channel open to anyone but primarily operated by the WMF Research and Data team). I agreed with this proposal but I’d be happy to put it on hold if others think that a dedicated RCom channel still serves a purpose.
A little bit of retrospective. The Research Committee as a group with a fixed membership and a regular meeting schedule has been inactive for a very long time. However, a number of RCom initiatives have continued to grow organically over the years thanks to the effort of individual members. These include:
(1) the monthly Research Newsletter [1] has been continuously published since July 2011 and is now close to completing its 3rd volume, thanks to Tilman Bayer’s commitment and unwavering dedication and a number of occasional or recurring contributors;
(2) the @WikiResearch handle [2], originally designed as a companion to the newsletter, today is followed by almost 1.5K users and brings together a large community of editors, researchers, journalists and members of the public interested in research on Wikimedia projects;
(3) Subject Recruitment requests [3] have kept trickling in. If they received timely support and an adequate response, it’s primarily thanks to Aaron Halfaker’s effort. Aaron joined WMF a few months ago as a full-time member of the Research and Data team but he is still investing some of his time in supporting these requests, despite the lack of formal legal or community policies backing the RCom approval process.
(4) Open Access initiatives led by Daniel Mietchen have spawned, among other things, a dedicated Wikiproject [4] and OA is now becoming an opportunity of active collaboration between Wikimedians and open knowledge/open science advocates, thanks to the work of Daniel, Andrea Zanni, Lane Rasberry, to name just a few. OA was big last summer at Wikimania ’13 and it will be even bigger this coming year in London. [5]
Other outreach initiatives similar in spirit to the RCom’s – such as Labs2 and WikiResearch hackathons [6] – have taken off thanks to the self-organized effort of like-minded individuals.
I am very proud of these achievements, which wouldn’t have been possible without many of you donating time and energy to push them forward (and I am sure I’m omitting other ideas born under the RCom brand that I am less familiar with). I am also glad that decentralization produced the desired effect of freeing individual projects from coordination costs and allowed them to grow at their own pace.
I take these success stories as evidence that the existence of a fixed-membership group with a recognized authority on any possible matter related to Wikimedia research and associated policies has ceased to be a priority. I believe this is the right operating model, given the diversity of projects that fell under the original scope of the RCom, but I’d like to hear if others on this list have a different opinion.
Meanwhile, best wishes of happy holidays to you and your families.
Dario
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter [2] https://twitter.com/WikiResearch [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Subject_recruitment [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Open_Access [5] http://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Outreach/Open_access [6] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Labs2/Hackathons
Dear all,
I agree that "the existence of a fixed-membership group with a recognized authority on any possible matter related to Wikimedia research and associated policies" is not a priority, and think it probably never was, since initiatives as those outlined by Dario seem to have been anticipated.
Anyway, what I think we do need is a Wikimedia equivalent of an ethical review panel, and RCom would be a good channel for that, ideally with the help of some others, as appropriate to the topic (here, we should perhaps think about involving relevant WikiProjects, user groups etc. more). I have just drafted a Research Newsletter entry that highlights this need once more (search for "integrity" on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-12-25/Recent... ).
Cheers,
Daniel
-- http://www.naturkundemuseum-berlin.de/en/institution/mitarbeiter/mietchen-da... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daniel_Mietchen/Publications http://okfn.org http://wikimedia.org
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 11:29 PM, Dario Taraborelli dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi everybody,
I received a few days ago a request to merge and redirect the almost inactive #wikimedia-rcom IRC channel to #wikimedia-research (a public channel open to anyone but primarily operated by the WMF Research and Data team). I agreed with this proposal but I’d be happy to put it on hold if others think that a dedicated RCom channel still serves a purpose.
A little bit of retrospective. The Research Committee as a group with a fixed membership and a regular meeting schedule has been inactive for a very long time. However, a number of RCom initiatives have continued to grow organically over the years thanks to the effort of individual members. These include:
(1) the monthly Research Newsletter [1] has been continuously published since July 2011 and is now close to completing its 3rd volume, thanks to Tilman Bayer’s commitment and unwavering dedication and a number of occasional or recurring contributors;
(2) the @WikiResearch handle [2], originally designed as a companion to the newsletter, today is followed by almost 1.5K users and brings together a large community of editors, researchers, journalists and members of the public interested in research on Wikimedia projects;
(3) Subject Recruitment requests [3] have kept trickling in. If they received timely support and an adequate response, it’s primarily thanks to Aaron Halfaker’s effort. Aaron joined WMF a few months ago as a full-time member of the Research and Data team but he is still investing some of his time in supporting these requests, despite the lack of formal legal or community policies backing the RCom approval process.
(4) Open Access initiatives led by Daniel Mietchen have spawned, among other things, a dedicated Wikiproject [4] and OA is now becoming an opportunity of active collaboration between Wikimedians and open knowledge/open science advocates, thanks to the work of Daniel, Andrea Zanni, Lane Rasberry, to name just a few. OA was big last summer at Wikimania ’13 and it will be even bigger this coming year in London. [5]
Other outreach initiatives similar in spirit to the RCom’s – such as Labs2 and WikiResearch hackathons [6] – have taken off thanks to the self-organized effort of like-minded individuals.
I am very proud of these achievements, which wouldn’t have been possible without many of you donating time and energy to push them forward (and I am sure I’m omitting other ideas born under the RCom brand that I am less familiar with). I am also glad that decentralization produced the desired effect of freeing individual projects from coordination costs and allowed them to grow at their own pace.
I take these success stories as evidence that the existence of a fixed-membership group with a recognized authority on any possible matter related to Wikimedia research and associated policies has ceased to be a priority. I believe this is the right operating model, given the diversity of projects that fell under the original scope of the RCom, but I’d like to hear if others on this list have a different opinion.
Meanwhile, best wishes of happy holidays to you and your families.
Dario
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter [2] https://twitter.com/WikiResearch [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Subject_recruitment [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Open_Access [5] http://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Outreach/Open_access [6] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Labs2/Hackathons
RCom-l mailing list RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l
Thanks for the prod Dario. There are two parts of this conversation that I'd like to draw attention to:
1. How should RCom move forward as a group? (meta) 2. What's the status and needs of current, live initiatives and what new initiatives should we (RCom) take on?
I think that we'd best deal with (1) in this thread and start discussions of (2) in separate threads.
*How should RCom move forward as a group?* My first question is, how do we benefit from a fixed list of members? One of the issues I feel that we've suffered from is a lack of activity beyond a core group of members. This isn't surprising since we all participate in this committee as volunteers -- even those of us at the WMF to a large extent. If we (RCom) are going to have a powerlaw of participation[1], we might consider "opening our doors" and boosting membership to let whoever has the time and interest pick up work as necessary. I suspect that there was some reasoning behind starting with a limited group size and official membership status, so I encourage someone else to make that point.
Next I'm wondering how we can organize better. I agree that decentralization has worked for us to some extent, but I suspect that we'd benefit from better coordination. Should we plan to spend more time in the IRC channel? Use this mailing list more? Find some place on-wiki to discuss our work? I'm not sure what's going to work for us, but I wanted to point out that we can coordinate while still maintaining decentralized decision making.
I'll be on #wikimedia-rcom & #wikimedia-research today if anyone wants to do some synchronous chat.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law
-Aaron
On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 11:16 PM, Daniel Mietchen < daniel.mietchen@googlemail.com> wrote:
Dear all,
I agree that "the existence of a fixed-membership group with a recognized authority on any possible matter related to Wikimedia research and associated policies" is not a priority, and think it probably never was, since initiatives as those outlined by Dario seem to have been anticipated.
Anyway, what I think we do need is a Wikimedia equivalent of an ethical review panel, and RCom would be a good channel for that, ideally with the help of some others, as appropriate to the topic (here, we should perhaps think about involving relevant WikiProjects, user groups etc. more). I have just drafted a Research Newsletter entry that highlights this need once more (search for "integrity" on
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-12-25/Recent... ).
Cheers,
Daniel
--
http://www.naturkundemuseum-berlin.de/en/institution/mitarbeiter/mietchen-da... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daniel_Mietchen/Publications http://okfn.org http://wikimedia.org
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 11:29 PM, Dario Taraborelli dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi everybody,
I received a few days ago a request to merge and redirect the almost inactive #wikimedia-rcom IRC channel to #wikimedia-research (a public channel open to anyone but primarily operated by the WMF Research and
Data
team). I agreed with this proposal but I’d be happy to put it on hold if others think that a dedicated RCom channel still serves a purpose.
A little bit of retrospective. The Research Committee as a group with a fixed membership and a regular meeting schedule has been inactive for a
very
long time. However, a number of RCom initiatives have continued to grow organically over the years thanks to the effort of individual members.
These
include:
(1) the monthly Research Newsletter [1] has been continuously published since July 2011 and is now close to completing its 3rd volume, thanks to Tilman Bayer’s commitment and unwavering dedication and a number of occasional or recurring contributors;
(2) the @WikiResearch handle [2], originally designed as a companion to
the
newsletter, today is followed by almost 1.5K users and brings together a large community of editors, researchers, journalists and members of the public interested in research on Wikimedia projects;
(3) Subject Recruitment requests [3] have kept trickling in. If they received timely support and an adequate response, it’s primarily thanks
to
Aaron Halfaker’s effort. Aaron joined WMF a few months ago as a full-time member of the Research and Data team but he is still investing some of
his
time in supporting these requests, despite the lack of formal legal or community policies backing the RCom approval process.
(4) Open Access initiatives led by Daniel Mietchen have spawned, among
other
things, a dedicated Wikiproject [4] and OA is now becoming an
opportunity of
active collaboration between Wikimedians and open knowledge/open science advocates, thanks to the work of Daniel, Andrea Zanni, Lane Rasberry, to name just a few. OA was big last summer at Wikimania ’13 and it will be
even
bigger this coming year in London. [5]
Other outreach initiatives similar in spirit to the RCom’s – such as
Labs2
and WikiResearch hackathons [6] – have taken off thanks to the self-organized effort of like-minded individuals.
I am very proud of these achievements, which wouldn’t have been possible without many of you donating time and energy to push them forward (and I
am
sure I’m omitting other ideas born under the RCom brand that I am less familiar with). I am also glad that decentralization produced the desired effect of freeing individual projects from coordination costs and allowed them to grow at their own pace.
I take these success stories as evidence that the existence of a fixed-membership group with a recognized authority on any possible matter related to Wikimedia research and associated policies has ceased to be a priority. I believe this is the right operating model, given the
diversity
of projects that fell under the original scope of the RCom, but I’d like
to
hear if others on this list have a different opinion.
Meanwhile, best wishes of happy holidays to you and your families.
Dario
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter [2] https://twitter.com/WikiResearch [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Subject_recruitment [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Open_Access [5] http://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Outreach/Open_access [6] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Labs2/Hackathons
RCom-l mailing list RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l
RCom-l mailing list RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l
Hi Dario & all!
Happy new year!
Thanks for the e-mail.
I received a few days ago a request to merge and redirect the almost inactive #wikimedia-rcom IRC channel >to #wikimedia-research (a public channel open >to anyone but primarily operated by the WMF Research and >Data team). I agreed with this proposal but I’d be happy to put it on hold if others think that a >dedicated RCom >channel still serves a purpose.
This is fine for me.
I take these success stories as evidence that the existence of a fixed-membership group with a recognized >authority on any possible matter related to >Wikimedia research and associated policies has ceased to be a >priority. I believe this is the right operating model, given the diversity of projects that fell under >the original >scope of the RCom, but I’d like to hear if others on this list have a different opinion.
Sorry I do not understand these two sentences (might be the English). What do you mean by ceased?. In any case, I agree that the list of achievements are good.
I would like to add and highlight also the http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Index, I found it very useful resource.
Then, the substantial increase of research activity performed or developed with the involvement of chapters. Only to mention the area of Active Aging and ICT, I know Swisses, Germans and Catalans are involved on important national research projects or/and Europeans projects. Additionally, Chapters recurrently develop surveys Wikipedias, and such as in the case of Catalan, we use the OAP and recruitment suggested practices by Rcom to select the projects we support. That is Rcom actions also has helped and orientate what Chapters do on research. I know this because I am personally involve, but these might also apply to other Chapters.
Finally, I also would like to highlight that it is very useful to have a “research” node or reference subject to be able to have a contact point and interlocutor for research projects, such as Dario as part of WMF research team is in the Board of a just started very large European project on “Techno-social platform for sustainable models and value generation in commons-based peer production in the Future Internet” http://p2pvalue.eu/ of which I am directing the empirical research. It is very good to have a way to connect and synergy such a projects with the Wikimedia world.
On future actions, I plan to attend London Wikimania. I would be happy to co-organize with others some activity there to give visibility to research actions and help promote networking.
Cheers to all! Mayo
On 12/23/2013 11:29 PM, Dario Taraborelli wrote: Hi everybody,
I received a few days ago a request to merge and redirect the almost inactive #wikimedia-rcom IRC channel to #wikimedia-research (a public channel open to anyone but primarily operated by the WMF Research and Data team). I agreed with this proposal but I’d be happy to put it on hold if others think that a dedicated RCom channel still serves a purpose.
A little bit of retrospective. The Research Committee as a group with a fixed membership and a regular meeting schedule has been inactive for a very long time. However, a number of RCom initiatives have continued to grow organically over the years thanks to the effort of individual members. These include:
(1) the monthly Research Newsletter [1] has been continuously published since July 2011 and is now close to completing its 3rd volume, thanks to Tilman Bayer’s commitment and unwavering dedication and a number of occasional or recurring contributors;
(2) the @WikiResearch handle [2], originally designed as a companion to the newsletter, today is followed by almost 1.5K users and brings together a large community of editors, researchers, journalists and members of the public interested in research on Wikimedia projects;
(3) Subject Recruitment requests [3] have kept trickling in. If they received timely support and an adequate response, it’s primarily thanks to Aaron Halfaker’s effort. Aaron joined WMF a few months ago as a full-time member of the Research and Data team but he is still investing some of his time in supporting these requests, despite the lack of formal legal or community policies backing the RCom approval process.
(4) Open Access initiatives led by Daniel Mietchen have spawned, among other things, a dedicated Wikiproject [4] and OA is now becoming an opportunity of active collaboration between Wikimedians and open knowledge/open science advocates, thanks to the work of Daniel, Andrea Zanni, Lane Rasberry, to name just a few. OA was big last summer at Wikimania ’13 and it will be even bigger this coming year in London. [5]
Other outreach initiatives similar in spirit to the RCom’s – such as Labs2 and WikiResearch hackathons [6] – have taken off thanks to the self-organized effort of like-minded individuals.
I am very proud of these achievements, which wouldn’t have been possible without many of you donating time and energy to push them forward (and I am sure I’m omitting other ideas born under the RCom brand that I am less familiar with). I am also glad that decentralization produced the desired effect of freeing individual projects from coordination costs and allowed them to grow at their own pace.
I take these success stories as evidence that the existence of a fixed-membership group with a recognized authority on any possible matter related to Wikimedia research and associated policies has ceased to be a priority. I believe this is the right operating model, given the diversity of projects that fell under the original scope of the RCom, but I’d like to hear if others on this list have a different opinion.
Meanwhile, best wishes of happy holidays to you and your families.
Dario
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter [2] https://twitter.com/WikiResearch [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Subject_recruitment [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Open_Access [5] http://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Outreach/Open_access [6] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Labs2/Hackathons
_______________________________________________ RCom-l mailing list RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l
--
«·´`·.(*·.¸(`·.¸ ¸.·´)¸.·*).·´`·» «·´¨*·¸¸« Mayo Fuster Morell ».¸.·*¨`·» @Lilaroja «·´`·.(¸.·´(¸.·* *·.¸)`·.¸).·´`·»
Fellow. Berkman Center for Internet and Society. Harvard University. Researcher. Institute of Government and Public Policies. Autonomous University of Barcelona. Ph.D European University Institute
Website: http://www.onlinecreation.info Phone: 0034-648877748
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
hi Mayo,
I should be at Wikimania, though as I work part time for the UK chapter I'm not expecting to have too much time for RCOM stuff. But it would be good to put in an RCOM presentation - submissions are now openhttps://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissionsand it would be good to have an open face to the community.
Jonathan
On 5 January 2014 20:17, Mayo Fuster Morell mayo.fuster@eui.eu wrote:
Hi Dario & all!
Happy new year!
Thanks for the e-mail.
I received a few days ago a request to merge and redirect the almost
inactive *#wikimedia-rcom* IRC channel >to #wikimedia-research (a public channel open >to anyone but primarily operated by the WMF Research and
Data team). I agreed with this proposal but I’d be happy to put it on hold
if others think that a >dedicated RCom >channel still serves a purpose.
This is fine for me.
I take these success stories as evidence that the existence of a
fixed-membership group with a recognized >authority on any possible matter related to >Wikimedia research and associated policies has ceased to be a
priority. I believe this is the right operating model, given the diversity
of projects that fell under >the original >scope of the RCom, but I’d like to hear if others on this list have a different opinion.
Sorry I do not understand these two sentences (might be the English). What do you mean by ceased?. In any case, I agree that the list of achievements are good.
I would like to add and highlight also the http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Index, I found it very useful resource.
Then, the substantial increase of research activity performed or developed with the involvement of chapters. Only to mention the area of Active Aging and ICT, I know Swisses, Germans and Catalans are involved on important national research projects or/and Europeans projects. Additionally, Chapters recurrently develop surveys Wikipedias, and such as in the case of Catalan, we use the OAP and recruitment suggested practices by Rcom to select the projects we support. That is Rcom actions also has helped and orientate what Chapters do on research. I know this because I am personally involve, but these might also apply to other Chapters.
Finally, I also would like to highlight that it is very useful to have a “research” node or reference subject to be able to have a contact point and interlocutor for research projects, such as Dario as part of WMF research team is in the Board of a just started very large European project on “*Techno-social platform for sustainable models and value generation in commons-based peer production in the Future Internet” **http://p2pvalue.eu/ http://p2pvalue.eu/ of which I am directing the empirical research. It is very good to have a way to connect and synergy such a projects with the Wikimedia world.*
*On future actions, I plan to attend London Wikimania. I would be happy to co-organize with others some activity there to give visibility to research actions and help promote networking. *
*Cheers to all! Mayo *
On 12/23/2013 11:29 PM, Dario Taraborelli wrote:
Hi everybody,
I received a few days ago a request to merge and redirect the almost inactive *#wikimedia-rcom* IRC channel to #wikimedia-research (a public channel open to anyone but primarily operated by the WMF Research and Data team). I agreed with this proposal but I’d be happy to put it on hold if others think that a dedicated RCom channel still serves a purpose.
A little bit of retrospective. The Research Committee as a group with a fixed membership and a regular meeting schedule has been inactive for a very long time. However, a number of RCom initiatives have continued to grow organically over the years thanks to the effort of individual members. These include:
(1) the monthly *Research Newsletter *[1] has been continuously published since July 2011 and is now close to completing its 3rd volume, thanks to Tilman Bayer’s commitment and unwavering dedication and a number of occasional or recurring contributors;
(2) the *@WikiResearch* handle [2], originally designed as a companion to the newsletter, today is followed by almost 1.5K users and brings together a large community of editors, researchers, journalists and members of the public interested in research on Wikimedia projects;
(3) *Subject Recruitment* requests [3] have kept trickling in. If they received timely support and an adequate response, it’s primarily thanks to Aaron Halfaker’s effort. Aaron joined WMF a few months ago as a full-time member of the Research and Data team but he is still investing some of his time in supporting these requests, despite the lack of formal legal or community policies backing the RCom approval process.
(4) *Open Access* initiatives led by Daniel Mietchen have spawned, among other things, a dedicated Wikiproject [4] and OA is now becoming an opportunity of active collaboration between Wikimedians and open knowledge/open science advocates, thanks to the work of Daniel, Andrea Zanni, Lane Rasberry, to name just a few. OA was big last summer at Wikimania ’13 and it will be even bigger this coming year in London. [5]
Other outreach initiatives similar in spirit to the RCom’s – such as *Labs2* and *WikiResearch hackathons *[6] – have taken off thanks to the self-organized effort of like-minded individuals.
I am very proud of these achievements, which wouldn’t have been possible without many of you donating time and energy to push them forward (and I am sure I’m omitting other ideas born under the RCom brand that I am less familiar with). I am also glad that decentralization produced the desired effect of freeing individual projects from coordination costs and allowed them to grow at their own pace.
I take these success stories as evidence that the existence of a fixed-membership group with a recognized authority on any possible matter related to Wikimedia research and associated policies has ceased to be a priority. I believe this is the right operating model, given the diversity of projects that fell under the original scope of the RCom, but I’d like to hear if others on this list have a different opinion.
Meanwhile, best wishes of happy holidays to you and your families.
Dario
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter [2] https://twitter.com/WikiResearch [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Subject_recruitment [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Open_Access [5] http://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Outreach/Open_access [6] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Labs2/Hackathons
RCom-l mailing listRCom-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l
--
«·´`·.(*·.¸(`·.¸ ¸.·´)¸.·*).·´`·» «·´¨*·¸¸« Mayo Fuster Morell ».¸.·*¨`·» @Lilaroja «·´`·.(¸.·´(¸.·* *·.¸)`·.¸).·´`·»
Fellow. Berkman Center for Internet and Society. Harvard University. Researcher. Institute of Government and Public Policies. Autonomous University of Barcelona. Ph.D European University Institute
Website: http://www.onlinecreation.info Phone: 0034-648877748
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
RCom-l mailing list RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l