All,
here's my first attempt at describing the overhaul of the research section on Meta I have in mind. Please send me your feedback or be bold and edit the doc (apologies for using a Gdoc instead of a wiki page, but I'd like to see if we can reach an agreement within RCom on the general lines of this plan before making this public)
Thanks Dario
Hello!
I hope that you are all happy and fine!
Thanks Dario for the work.
Here my two cents:
* I missed (in this case, but also in general in our conversation) that we have present the research promoted by Chapters and other promotors groups of Wikimedia, that even if they are not research teams in the more conventional sense, are developing valuable research. Just now I can think of four research projects developed by chapter groups. I think Meta:Research would have to talk also to them and to be a reference point for them to collaborate on the research they develop.
* I think the resources now are a bit too much focus on English Wikipedia. To expand to other languages is an important part of the current strategic development (as far of the Strategic planning said). In this regard, to introduce in the new restructuring a "tag" or other form to give visibility to literature and resources on other wikipedians other than the English one would be good and in line with this strategic goal and facilitate to know how other wikipedians function. (By the way, I am co-editing a Journal special issue on wikipedia literature from a comparative perspective or from cases which are not the English one).
* I am not sure where this would go, but I think a page dedicated to methodological lessons (not research results or research literature) would be very useful resources. To know which rate expect from a survey according to the results previous surveys rate responses, or to know what method works better for research specific type of editors is like honey to researchers, and a resource which systematize that knowledge would be an incentive to attract participation into Meta: Research. I would be happy to facilitate the systematization of methodological lessons.
* I think beyond these practical and design questions, I think it would be good to reflect a bit conceptually. The research resources hosted at Meta (and other channels) is not visible in itself, it is so much inserted in wikipedia editing identity that it is not perceived by research as a resource of their own as researchers. To build a Meta: research category is a good thing to solve that, but still I think we might want to reinforce the identity of a community around "wikimedia research commons" and transmit the message that you don't need to be or feel to be a wikipedia editor in order to participate and contribute to "wikimedia research commons". I recently wrote an article on international research resources and presented what in my view would be a "wikimedia research commons". The article is quiet long, so here I put the extracts only of this specific matter: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Lilaroja I think an small campaign presenting "wikimedia resarch commons" to researchers and attract them to it (and not try to attract them to wikipedia in general as an starting point), explaining what it offer them as researcher and how they can contribute to the research commons might faciliatte the engaging of research into a collaborative community around s some short of "wikimedia resarch commons".
* I think even in working progress RCom work, it would be better to work on Wiki. I think it is good that the RCom functioning could be tracked and particularly on referring the Meta: Research category I don't see any controversy or sensible issue for which not to work in this way.
Thanks again. Cheers! Mayo
«·´`·.(*·.¸(`·.¸ ¸.·´)¸.·*).·´`·» «·´¨*·¸¸« Mayo Fuster Morell ».¸.·*¨`·» «·´`·.(¸.·´(¸.·* *·.¸)`·.¸).·´`·»
Research Digital Commons Governance: http://www.onlinecreation.info
Ph.D European University Institute Postdoctoral Researcher. Institute of Govern and Public Policies. Autonomous University of Barcelona. Visiting scholar. Internet Interdisciplinary Institute. Open University of Catalonia (UOC). Visiting researcher (2008). School of information. University of California, Berkeley. Member Research Committee. Wikimedia Foundation
http://www.onlinecreation.info E-mail: mayo.fuster@eui.eu Skype: mayoneti Phone Spanish State: 0034-648877748 ________________________________________ From: rcom-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [rcom-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Dario Taraborelli [dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org] Sent: 12 May 2011 01:12 To: The Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee mailing list Subject: [RCom-l] Plan for Meta:Research overhaul: please send your feedback
All,
here's my first attempt at describing the overhaul of the research section on Meta I have in mind. Please send me your feedback or be bold and edit the doc (apologies for using a Gdoc instead of a wiki page, but I'd like to see if we can reach an agreement within RCom on the general lines of this plan before making this public)
Thanks Dario _______________________________________________ RCom-l mailing list RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l
Hi Mayo,
thanks for your feedback, comments inline
- I missed (in this case, but also in general in our conversation) that we have present the research promoted by Chapters and other promotors groups of Wikimedia, that even if they are not research teams in the more conventional sense, are developing valuable research. Just now I can think of four research projects developed by chapter groups. I think Meta:Research would have to talk also to them and to be a reference point for them to collaborate on the research they develop.
agreed, although there are also projects listed in the directory that are not about research at all, such as Linkypedia
- I think the resources now are a bit too much focus on English Wikipedia. To expand to other languages is an important part of the current strategic development (as far of the Strategic planning said). In this regard, to introduce in the new restructuring a "tag" or other form to give visibility to literature and resources on other wikipedians other than the English one would be good and in line with this strategic goal and facilitate to know how other wikipedians function. (By the way, I am co-editing a Journal special issue on wikipedia literature from a comparative perspective or from cases which are not the English one).
I don't have the feeling this is the case, but there is no reason why shouldn't include resources focused on non-English Wikipedias in the list and categorize them separately
- I am not sure where this would go, but I think a page dedicated to methodological lessons (not research results or research literature) would be very useful resources. To know which rate expect from a survey according to the results previous surveys rate responses, or to know what method works better for research specific type of editors is like honey to researchers, and a resource which systematize that knowledge would be an incentive to attract participation into Meta: Research. I would be happy to facilitate the systematization of methodological lessons.
I think most methodological discussions currently happen on the lists, but if you want to start adding method-related discussions on Meta, Meta:Research would be the obvious place to do so
- I think beyond these practical and design questions, I think it would be good to reflect a bit conceptually. The research resources hosted at Meta (and other channels) is not visible in itself, it is so much inserted in wikipedia editing identity that it is not perceived by research as a resource of their own as researchers. To build a Meta: research category is a good thing to solve that, but still I think we might want to reinforce the identity of a community around "wikimedia research commons" and transmit the message that you don't need to be or feel to be a wikipedia editor in order to participate and contribute to "wikimedia research commons". I recently wrote an article on international research resources and presented what in my view would be a "wikimedia research commons". The article is quiet long, so here I put the extracts only of this specific matter: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Lilaroja
I think an small campaign presenting "wikimedia resarch commons" to researchers and attract them to it (and not try to attract them to wikipedia in general as an starting point), explaining what it offer them as researcher and how they can contribute to the research commons might faciliatte the engaging of research into a collaborative community around s some short of "wikimedia resarch commons".
that's precisely the goal of this initiative. Whether we achieve this goal or not depends on: (1) how friendly the Meta:Research section will be to researchers who are not editors and (2) the benefits the community will perceive in being part of it. Building an open data repository, setting up a central scholarly reference pool (along the lines of the AcaWiki project currently discussed on the lists) and giving more visibility to one's research via WMF outlets should all provide strong incentives for participation.
- I think even in working progress RCom work, it would be better to work on Wiki. I think it is good that the RCom functioning could be tracked and particularly on referring the Meta: Research category I don't see any controversy or sensible issue for which not to work in this way.
just to clarify – there's nothing private or confidential about this proposal, I just want to get some informal feedback from RCom members before this goes public, so we can present to the community something a bit more structured than my own preliminary thoughts.
Cheers Dario
-- Dario Taraborelli, PhD Senior Research Analyst Wikimedia Foundation
http://wikimediafoundation.org http://nitens.org/taraborelli
Ok! Thanks Dario for the answers! Looking forward to the restructuring! I think your scheme is a very good plan, Mayo
«·´`·.(*·.¸(`·.¸ ¸.·´)¸.·*).·´`·» «·´¨*·¸¸« Mayo Fuster Morell ».¸.·*¨`·» «·´`·.(¸.·´(¸.·* *·.¸)`·.¸).·´`·»
Research Digital Commons Governance: http://www.onlinecreation.info
Ph.D European University Institute Postdoctoral Researcher. Institute of Govern and Public Policies. Autonomous University of Barcelona. Visiting scholar. Internet Interdisciplinary Institute. Open University of Catalonia (UOC). Visiting researcher (2008). School of information. University of California, Berkeley. Member Research Committee. Wikimedia Foundation
http://www.onlinecreation.info E-mail: mayo.fuster@eui.eu Skype: mayoneti Phone Spanish State: 0034-648877748 ________________________________________ From: rcom-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [rcom-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Dario Taraborelli [dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org] Sent: 12 May 2011 20:08 To: The Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee mailing list Subject: Re: [RCom-l] Plan for Meta:Research overhaul: please send your feedback
Hi Mayo,
thanks for your feedback, comments inline
* I missed (in this case, but also in general in our conversation) that we have present the research promoted by Chapters and other promotors groups of Wikimedia, that even if they are not research teams in the more conventional sense, are developing valuable research. Just now I can think of four research projects developed by chapter groups. I think Meta:Research would have to talk also to them and to be a reference point for them to collaborate on the research they develop.
agreed, although there are also projects listed in the directory that are not about research at all, such as Linkypedia
* I think the resources now are a bit too much focus on English Wikipedia. To expand to other languages is an important part of the current strategic development (as far of the Strategic planning said). In this regard, to introduce in the new restructuring a "tag" or other form to give visibility to literature and resources on other wikipedians other than the English one would be good and in line with this strategic goal and facilitate to know how other wikipedians function. (By the way, I am co-editing a Journal special issue on wikipedia literature from a comparative perspective or from cases which are not the English one).
I don't have the feeling this is the case, but there is no reason why shouldn't include resources focused on non-English Wikipedias in the list and categorize them separately
* I am not sure where this would go, but I think a page dedicated to methodological lessons (not research results or research literature) would be very useful resources. To know which rate expect from a survey according to the results previous surveys rate responses, or to know what method works better for research specific type of editors is like honey to researchers, and a resource which systematize that knowledge would be an incentive to attract participation into Meta: Research. I would be happy to facilitate the systematization of methodological lessons.
I think most methodological discussions currently happen on the lists, but if you want to start adding method-related discussions on Meta, Meta:Research would be the obvious place to do so
* I think beyond these practical and design questions, I think it would be good to reflect a bit conceptually. The research resources hosted at Meta (and other channels) is not visible in itself, it is so much inserted in wikipedia editing identity that it is not perceived by research as a resource of their own as researchers. To build a Meta: research category is a good thing to solve that, but still I think we might want to reinforce the identity of a community around "wikimedia research commons" and transmit the message that you don't need to be or feel to be a wikipedia editor in order to participate and contribute to "wikimedia research commons". I recently wrote an article on international research resources and presented what in my view would be a "wikimedia research commons". The article is quiet long, so here I put the extracts only of this specific matter: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Lilaroja I think an small campaign presenting "wikimedia resarch commons" to researchers and attract them to it (and not try to attract them to wikipedia in general as an starting point), explaining what it offer them as researcher and how they can contribute to the research commons might faciliatte the engaging of research into a collaborative community around s some short of "wikimedia resarch commons".
that's precisely the goal of this initiative. Whether we achieve this goal or not depends on: (1) how friendly the Meta:Research section will be to researchers who are not editors and (2) the benefits the community will perceive in being part of it. Building an open data repository, setting up a central scholarly reference pool (along the lines of the AcaWiki project currently discussed on the lists) and giving more visibility to one's research via WMF outlets should all provide strong incentives for participation.
* I think even in working progress RCom work, it would be better to work on Wiki. I think it is good that the RCom functioning could be tracked and particularly on referring the Meta: Research category I don't see any controversy or sensible issue for which not to work in this way.
just to clarify – there's nothing private or confidential about this proposal, I just want to get some informal feedback from RCom members before this goes public, so we can present to the community something a bit more structured than my own preliminary thoughts.
Cheers Dario
-- Dario Taraborelli, PhD Senior Research Analyst Wikimedia Foundation
http://wikimediafoundation.org http://nitens.org/taraborelli
This looks excellent. I don't have any concerns that we can't work out as we flesh out the structure. I am a little worried about publicity though. How do we make sure that researchers who are newly interested in Wikipedia are aware that such a resource exists (once it is created)?
-Aaron
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Fuster, Mayo Mayo.Fuster@eui.eu wrote:
Ok! Thanks Dario for the answers! Looking forward to the restructuring! I think your scheme is a very good plan, Mayo
«·´`·.(*·.¸(`·.¸ ¸.·´)¸.·*).·´`·» «·´¨*·¸¸« Mayo Fuster Morell ».¸.·*¨`·» «·´`·.(¸.·´(¸.·* *·.¸)`·.¸).·´`·»
Research Digital Commons Governance: http://www.onlinecreation.info
Ph.D European University Institute Postdoctoral Researcher. Institute of Govern and Public Policies. Autonomous University of Barcelona. Visiting scholar. Internet Interdisciplinary Institute. Open University of Catalonia (UOC). Visiting researcher (2008). School of information. University of California, Berkeley. Member Research Committee. Wikimedia Foundation
http://www.onlinecreation.info E-mail: mayo.fuster@eui.eu Skype: mayoneti Phone Spanish State: 0034-648877748 ________________________________________ From: rcom-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [ rcom-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Dario Taraborelli [ dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org] Sent: 12 May 2011 20:08 To: The Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee mailing list Subject: Re: [RCom-l] Plan for Meta:Research overhaul: please send your feedback
Hi Mayo,
thanks for your feedback, comments inline
- I missed (in this case, but also in general in our conversation) that we
have present the research promoted by Chapters and other promotors groups of Wikimedia, that even if they are not research teams in the more conventional sense, are developing valuable research. Just now I can think of four research projects developed by chapter groups. I think Meta:Research would have to talk also to them and to be a reference point for them to collaborate on the research they develop.
agreed, although there are also projects listed in the directory that are not about research at all, such as Linkypedia
- I think the resources now are a bit too much focus on English Wikipedia.
To expand to other languages is an important part of the current strategic development (as far of the Strategic planning said). In this regard, to introduce in the new restructuring a "tag" or other form to give visibility to literature and resources on other wikipedians other than the English one would be good and in line with this strategic goal and facilitate to know how other wikipedians function. (By the way, I am co-editing a Journal special issue on wikipedia literature from a comparative perspective or from cases which are not the English one).
I don't have the feeling this is the case, but there is no reason why shouldn't include resources focused on non-English Wikipedias in the list and categorize them separately
- I am not sure where this would go, but I think a page dedicated to
methodological lessons (not research results or research literature) would be very useful resources. To know which rate expect from a survey according to the results previous surveys rate responses, or to know what method works better for research specific type of editors is like honey to researchers, and a resource which systematize that knowledge would be an incentive to attract participation into Meta: Research. I would be happy to facilitate the systematization of methodological lessons.
I think most methodological discussions currently happen on the lists, but if you want to start adding method-related discussions on Meta, Meta:Research would be the obvious place to do so
- I think beyond these practical and design questions, I think it would be
good to reflect a bit conceptually. The research resources hosted at Meta (and other channels) is not visible in itself, it is so much inserted in wikipedia editing identity that it is not perceived by research as a resource of their own as researchers. To build a Meta: research category is a good thing to solve that, but still I think we might want to reinforce the identity of a community around "wikimedia research commons" and transmit the message that you don't need to be or feel to be a wikipedia editor in order to participate and contribute to "wikimedia research commons". I recently wrote an article on international research resources and presented what in my view would be a "wikimedia research commons". The article is quiet long, so here I put the extracts only of this specific matter: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Lilaroja I think an small campaign presenting "wikimedia resarch commons" to researchers and attract them to it (and not try to attract them to wikipedia in general as an starting point), explaining what it offer them as researcher and how they can contribute to the research commons might faciliatte the engaging of research into a collaborative community around s some short of "wikimedia resarch commons".
that's precisely the goal of this initiative. Whether we achieve this goal or not depends on: (1) how friendly the Meta:Research section will be to researchers who are not editors and (2) the benefits the community will perceive in being part of it. Building an open data repository, setting up a central scholarly reference pool (along the lines of the AcaWiki project currently discussed on the lists) and giving more visibility to one's research via WMF outlets should all provide strong incentives for participation.
- I think even in working progress RCom work, it would be better to work on
Wiki. I think it is good that the RCom functioning could be tracked and particularly on referring the Meta: Research category I don't see any controversy or sensible issue for which not to work in this way.
just to clarify – there's nothing private or confidential about this proposal, I just want to get some informal feedback from RCom members before this goes public, so we can present to the community something a bit more structured than my own preliminary thoughts.
Cheers Dario
-- Dario Taraborelli, PhD Senior Research Analyst Wikimedia Foundation
http://wikimediafoundation.org http://nitens.org/taraborelli
RCom-l mailing list RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l
by spamming at regular intervals all relevant mailing lists :) Seriously, I expect both the wikiresearch-l and WikiSym community will support of the idea of creating a single place where Wikimedia research is tracked and discussed, and this should provide us with an initial critical mass of participants. I would be more concerned of how to make this resource sustainable in the long term, but that's a problem we can address at a later stage.
Dario
On May 12, 2011, at 12:19 PM, Aaron Halfaker wrote:
This looks excellent. I don't have any concerns that we can't work out as we flesh out the structure. I am a little worried about publicity though. How do we make sure that researchers who are newly interested in Wikipedia are aware that such a resource exists (once it is created)?
-Aaron
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Fuster, Mayo Mayo.Fuster@eui.eu wrote: Ok! Thanks Dario for the answers! Looking forward to the restructuring! I think your scheme is a very good plan, Mayo
«·´`·.(*·.¸(`·.¸ ¸.·´)¸.·*).·´`·» «·´¨*·¸¸« Mayo Fuster Morell ».¸.·*¨`·» «·´`·.(¸.·´(¸.·* *·.¸)`·.¸).·´`·»
Research Digital Commons Governance: http://www.onlinecreation.info
Ph.D European University Institute Postdoctoral Researcher. Institute of Govern and Public Policies. Autonomous University of Barcelona. Visiting scholar. Internet Interdisciplinary Institute. Open University of Catalonia (UOC). Visiting researcher (2008). School of information. University of California, Berkeley. Member Research Committee. Wikimedia Foundation
http://www.onlinecreation.info E-mail: mayo.fuster@eui.eu Skype: mayoneti Phone Spanish State: 0034-648877748 ________________________________________ From: rcom-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [rcom-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Dario Taraborelli [dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org] Sent: 12 May 2011 20:08 To: The Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee mailing list Subject: Re: [RCom-l] Plan for Meta:Research overhaul: please send your feedback
Hi Mayo,
thanks for your feedback, comments inline
- I missed (in this case, but also in general in our conversation) that we have present the research promoted by Chapters and other promotors groups of Wikimedia, that even if they are not research teams in the more conventional sense, are developing valuable research. Just now I can think of four research projects developed by chapter groups. I think Meta:Research would have to talk also to them and to be a reference point for them to collaborate on the research they develop.
agreed, although there are also projects listed in the directory that are not about research at all, such as Linkypedia
- I think the resources now are a bit too much focus on English Wikipedia. To expand to other languages is an important part of the current strategic development (as far of the Strategic planning said). In this regard, to introduce in the new restructuring a "tag" or other form to give visibility to literature and resources on other wikipedians other than the English one would be good and in line with this strategic goal and facilitate to know how other wikipedians function. (By the way, I am co-editing a Journal special issue on wikipedia literature from a comparative perspective or from cases which are not the English one).
I don't have the feeling this is the case, but there is no reason why shouldn't include resources focused on non-English Wikipedias in the list and categorize them separately
- I am not sure where this would go, but I think a page dedicated to methodological lessons (not research results or research literature) would be very useful resources. To know which rate expect from a survey according to the results previous surveys rate responses, or to know what method works better for research specific type of editors is like honey to researchers, and a resource which systematize that knowledge would be an incentive to attract participation into Meta: Research. I would be happy to facilitate the systematization of methodological lessons.
I think most methodological discussions currently happen on the lists, but if you want to start adding method-related discussions on Meta, Meta:Research would be the obvious place to do so
- I think beyond these practical and design questions, I think it would be good to reflect a bit conceptually. The research resources hosted at Meta (and other channels) is not visible in itself, it is so much inserted in wikipedia editing identity that it is not perceived by research as a resource of their own as researchers. To build a Meta: research category is a good thing to solve that, but still I think we might want to reinforce the identity of a community around "wikimedia research commons" and transmit the message that you don't need to be or feel to be a wikipedia editor in order to participate and contribute to "wikimedia research commons". I recently wrote an article on international research resources and presented what in my view would be a "wikimedia research commons". The article is quiet long, so here I put the extracts only of this specific matter: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Lilaroja
I think an small campaign presenting "wikimedia resarch commons" to researchers and attract them to it (and not try to attract them to wikipedia in general as an starting point), explaining what it offer them as researcher and how they can contribute to the research commons might faciliatte the engaging of research into a collaborative community around s some short of "wikimedia resarch commons".
that's precisely the goal of this initiative. Whether we achieve this goal or not depends on: (1) how friendly the Meta:Research section will be to researchers who are not editors and (2) the benefits the community will perceive in being part of it. Building an open data repository, setting up a central scholarly reference pool (along the lines of the AcaWiki project currently discussed on the lists) and giving more visibility to one's research via WMF outlets should all provide strong incentives for participation.
- I think even in working progress RCom work, it would be better to work on Wiki. I think it is good that the RCom functioning could be tracked and particularly on referring the Meta: Research category I don't see any controversy or sensible issue for which not to work in this way.
just to clarify – there's nothing private or confidential about this proposal, I just want to get some informal feedback from RCom members before this goes public, so we can present to the community something a bit more structured than my own preliminary thoughts.
Cheers Dario
-- Dario Taraborelli, PhD Senior Research Analyst Wikimedia Foundation
http://wikimediafoundation.org http://nitens.org/taraborelli
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
I agree with Mayo that Dario's plan is in excellent shape, and with Aaron that the kind of problems that might occur when rolling out the scheme should well be manageable.
As for publicity, I think that anyone "newly interested in Wikipedia" could be expected to do a search on at least Wikipedia and Google, and if we make the landing page easily findable both ways, that should work out fine.
Daniel
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Aaron Halfaker aaron.halfaker@gmail.com wrote:
This looks excellent. I don't have any concerns that we can't work out as we flesh out the structure. I am a little worried about publicity though. How do we make sure that researchers who are newly interested in Wikipedia are aware that such a resource exists (once it is created)? -Aaron On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Fuster, Mayo Mayo.Fuster@eui.eu wrote:
Ok! Thanks Dario for the answers! Looking forward to the restructuring! I think your scheme is a very good plan, Mayo
«·´`·.(*·.¸(`·.¸ ¸.·´)¸.·*).·´`·» «·´¨*·¸¸« Mayo Fuster Morell ».¸.·*¨`·» «·´`·.(¸.·´(¸.·* *·.¸)`·.¸).·´`·»
Research Digital Commons Governance: http://www.onlinecreation.info
Ph.D European University Institute Postdoctoral Researcher. Institute of Govern and Public Policies. Autonomous University of Barcelona. Visiting scholar. Internet Interdisciplinary Institute. Open University of Catalonia (UOC). Visiting researcher (2008). School of information. University of California, Berkeley. Member Research Committee. Wikimedia Foundation
http://www.onlinecreation.info E-mail: mayo.fuster@eui.eu Skype: mayoneti Phone Spanish State: 0034-648877748 ________________________________________ From: rcom-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [rcom-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Dario Taraborelli [dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org] Sent: 12 May 2011 20:08 To: The Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee mailing list Subject: Re: [RCom-l] Plan for Meta:Research overhaul: please send your feedback
Hi Mayo,
thanks for your feedback, comments inline
- I missed (in this case, but also in general in our conversation) that we
have present the research promoted by Chapters and other promotors groups of Wikimedia, that even if they are not research teams in the more conventional sense, are developing valuable research. Just now I can think of four research projects developed by chapter groups. I think Meta:Research would have to talk also to them and to be a reference point for them to collaborate on the research they develop.
agreed, although there are also projects listed in the directory that are not about research at all, such as Linkypedia
- I think the resources now are a bit too much focus on English Wikipedia.
To expand to other languages is an important part of the current strategic development (as far of the Strategic planning said). In this regard, to introduce in the new restructuring a "tag" or other form to give visibility to literature and resources on other wikipedians other than the English one would be good and in line with this strategic goal and facilitate to know how other wikipedians function. (By the way, I am co-editing a Journal special issue on wikipedia literature from a comparative perspective or from cases which are not the English one).
I don't have the feeling this is the case, but there is no reason why shouldn't include resources focused on non-English Wikipedias in the list and categorize them separately
- I am not sure where this would go, but I think a page dedicated to
methodological lessons (not research results or research literature) would be very useful resources. To know which rate expect from a survey according to the results previous surveys rate responses, or to know what method works better for research specific type of editors is like honey to researchers, and a resource which systematize that knowledge would be an incentive to attract participation into Meta: Research. I would be happy to facilitate the systematization of methodological lessons.
I think most methodological discussions currently happen on the lists, but if you want to start adding method-related discussions on Meta, Meta:Research would be the obvious place to do so
- I think beyond these practical and design questions, I think it would be
good to reflect a bit conceptually. The research resources hosted at Meta (and other channels) is not visible in itself, it is so much inserted in wikipedia editing identity that it is not perceived by research as a resource of their own as researchers. To build a Meta: research category is a good thing to solve that, but still I think we might want to reinforce the identity of a community around "wikimedia research commons" and transmit the message that you don't need to be or feel to be a wikipedia editor in order to participate and contribute to "wikimedia research commons". I recently wrote an article on international research resources and presented what in my view would be a "wikimedia research commons". The article is quiet long, so here I put the extracts only of this specific matter: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Lilaroja I think an small campaign presenting "wikimedia resarch commons" to researchers and attract them to it (and not try to attract them to wikipedia in general as an starting point), explaining what it offer them as researcher and how they can contribute to the research commons might faciliatte the engaging of research into a collaborative community around s some short of "wikimedia resarch commons".
that's precisely the goal of this initiative. Whether we achieve this goal or not depends on: (1) how friendly the Meta:Research section will be to researchers who are not editors and (2) the benefits the community will perceive in being part of it. Building an open data repository, setting up a central scholarly reference pool (along the lines of the AcaWiki project currently discussed on the lists) and giving more visibility to one's research via WMF outlets should all provide strong incentives for participation.
- I think even in working progress RCom work, it would be better to work
on Wiki. I think it is good that the RCom functioning could be tracked and particularly on referring the Meta: Research category I don't see any controversy or sensible issue for which not to work in this way.
just to clarify – there's nothing private or confidential about this proposal, I just want to get some informal feedback from RCom members before this goes public, so we can present to the community something a bit more structured than my own preliminary thoughts.
Cheers Dario
-- Dario Taraborelli, PhD Senior Research Analyst Wikimedia Foundation
http://wikimediafoundation.org http://nitens.org/taraborelli
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