Pursuant to prior discussions about the need for a research
policy on Wikipedia, WikiProject Research is drafting a
policy regarding the recruitment of Wikipedia users to
participate in studies.
At this time, we have a proposed policy, and an accompanying
group that would facilitate recruitment of subjects in much
the same way that the Bot Approvals Group approves bots.
The policy proposal can be found at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Research
The Subject Recruitment Approvals Group mentioned in the proposal
is being described at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Subject_Recruitment_Approvals_Group
Before we move forward with seeking approval from the Wikipedia
community, we would like additional input about the proposal,
and would welcome additional help improving it.
Also, please consider participating in WikiProject Research at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Research
--
Bryan Song
GroupLens Research
University of Minnesota
Has anyone done any research on a by country basis? I'm trying to fill out
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiWomenCamp/FAQ/Perspectives a bit and I'm
looking for assistance. I know there has been some research but not sure
what and where, and what the breakdown was when analysis has been done.
Has anyone done comprehensive research on this subject in terms of
participation?
Thanks,
Laura Hale
--
twitter: purplepopple
blog: ozziesport.com
Hi all,
Phoebe Ayers and I are leading a workshop at WikiSym this year,
"WikiLit: Collecting the Wiki and Wikipedia Literature". We would love
to have your participation!
This workshop has three key goals. First, we will examine existing and
proposed systems for collecting and analyzing the research literature
about wikis. Second, we will discuss the challenges in building such a
system and will engage participants to design a sustainable
collaborative system to achieve this goal. Finally, we will provide a
forum to build upon ongoing wiki community discussions about problems
and opportunities in finding and sharing the wiki research literature.
For more details, please see:
http://www.wikisym.org/ws2011/workshop:wikilit
Please do not hesitate to ask questions, either by replying here on the
list or by contacting me or Phoebe (psayers(a)ucdavis.edu) directly.
Looking forward to seeing you at WikiSym!
Reid
The latest issue (December 2011) of the monthly Wikimedia Research Newsletter is out:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2011-12-26
In this issue:
1 Mental health information on Wikipedia more accurate than Britannica and Kaplan & Sadock psychiatry textbook
2 Psychologists gauge impact of Wikipedia's Rorschach test coverage
3 Spell-checking the English Wikipedia
4 Wikipedians are "smart but fun", and have expertise in topics they edit
5 Wikipedia as a database for structured biological data
6 Individual and social drivers of participation in Wikipedia
7 Mining article revision histories for insights into open collaboration
8 Briefly
9 References
••• 15 items were covered in this issue •••
You can post suggestions and contributions for the next issue at:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Newsletter
or by mail at researchnews(a)wikimedia.org
RSS feed for the newsletter: http://blog.wikimedia.org/c/research-2/wikimedia-research-newsletter/feed/
Best,
Dario
--
Dario Taraborelli, PhD
Senior Research Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
http://wikimediafoundation.orghttp://nitens.org/taraborelli
Hello everyone,
I've been until now a lurker on this list, let me introduce myself - I'm
a sociologist studying digital technologies, an activist (I run Creative
Commons Poland) and I run a digital think tank / NGO in Poland.
I'm hoping someone on this list might be able to help me: I'm involved
in the celebrations of the Public Domain Day - on the 1st of January
each year works pass into the public domain of authors who've died 70
years ago (at least in Poland, and in most countries, but it might
differ in some jurisdictions).
I'm looking for a good way to determine, who died in 1941 - and thought
that Wikipedia will be a good place to find this out. I know there are
lists of people who died in a given year, but they are not complete. Is
there any way to automatically query Wikipedia for such information? I
know that it's to some extent structured, as this information is
provided in templates for biographical articles, but I don't know
whether there is any mechanism for querying?
Any advice will be much appreciated.
All the best,
Alek
--
dyrektor, Centrum Cyfrowe Projekt: Polska
www: http://centrumcyfrowe.pl
identi.ca / twitter: @centrumcyfrowe
Hi all;
I just want to share with you a list of 2596 papers about wikis I generated
this afternoon scraping Google Scholar results.[1] To download, use: wget
-t1 -c -i papers.txt. If you want to split the list before: split -l500
papers.txt papers-
I'm creating a wiki to compile all available bibliography about wikis, so,
I need a ton of those.
Regards,
emijrp
[1] http://pastebin.com/6MzvR6Vi
Hello everyone,
I have just read the comments related to an email I have sent earlier. My hotmail account was hacked and was sending spams to my contacts. Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience this might have caused.
Regards,Mohamad
[Our apologies if you have received multiple copies of this announcement.]
CALL FOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Edited Volume "The People's Web Meets NLP: Collaboratively Constructed Language Resources"
Springer book series: "Theory and Applications of Natural Language Processing", E. Hovy, M.
Johnson and G. Hirst (eds.)
http://www.ukp.tu-darmstadt.de/scientific-community/edited-book-the-peoples…
===Description===
The application of collective intelligence in the domain of language yielded collaboratively
constructed language resources (CCLR) that can be used in a variety of ways.
The aim of this book is to capture the state-of-the-art in the emerging area of research on
"Collaboratively constructed language resources." Thus, a point of reference on the topics of
construction, mining, using and interconnecting collaboratively constructed language resources
for natural language processing, knowledge discovery and other intelligent applications will be
created.
Given the appropriateness of the topics, preliminary versions of contributions may be submitted
in parallel to the 3rd workshop of "The People's Web meets NLP: Collaboratively Constructed
Semantic Resources and their Applications to NLP."
(http://www.ukp.tu-darmstadt.de/scientific-community/acl-2012-workshop)
===Publication Schedule===
* January 8th, 2012 – deadline for abstract submission
* January 13th, 2012 – notification of abstract acceptance
* April 15th, 2012 – submission of book chapters
* June 8th, 2012 – notification of chapter acceptance
* August 31st, 2012 – final submission of book chapters
* November - December 2012 – publication by Springer
===Editors===
Iryna Gurevych and Jungi Kim
Please refer to the book website for detailed information.
<b><span style="font-size: 25pt;">
<a alt="po59wc42cngm1azbq59
jf47sat1rk0w2hlofg13
qf7z5rovyqtd0gtqxu9l"
id="3t5kevvd64ujuztrjlt
7kbvibd4b78aijnwnfnq"
href="gsr6os76o3xeyp.lm3.me/sd_wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org/rhf2
z3tng47zlogg4ecjau_ViewMsg" >
Click here to see the attached video</a>
On 12/02/2011 04:11 AM, wiki-research-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
> Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 16:23:44 +0100
> From: emijrp <emijrp(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Gendergap] [Foundation-l] Fundraising is
> for men
> To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects
> <gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Cc: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>, Research into Wikimedia content and
> communities <wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
2011/12/1 Carol Moore <carolmooredc(a)verizon.net>
>> > On 11/29/2011 5:19 PM, emijrp wrote:
(clipped)
> Better, make Wikipedia friendly to disabled people, the great forgotten
> excluded people group. For example, blind people can't sign up because of
> Wikipedia captcha (there is no sound captcha
> https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4845). That is a real
> barrier which Wikimedia Foundation have to solve putting resources.
>
> Where is the accessibility mailing list? Accessibility is a recommendation
> by W3C since 1997, and we are in the top ten websites, as WMF likes to
> boast.
I disagree strongly with emijrp on much of this topic, which I will not
go into here because (a) it's offtopic for this list and (b) the
Wikimedia movement has already agreed that increasing inclusivity to
women in the Wikimedia projects is important.
emijrp, thank you for drawing my attention to bug 4845. I added it to
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Accessibility
I see there was an Wikimedia accessibility hackathon led by Katie
Filbert (User:Aude) in Washington, DC in late November.
http://www.wikimediadc.org/wiki/Accessibility_hackathon At that event,
per http://www.wikimediadc.org/wiki/Accessibility_hackathon/Fixes ,
"Katie replaced an inaccessible captcha on the "create a new account"
page of the wikimediadc.org website, using a more accessible captcha
that features an audio recognition process." I'll contact her to ask if
that's the same switch that needs to be made for Wikimedia sites, and
whether she could take care of that.
And of course if you think there should be an accessibility mailing
list, you should start one!
Sorry for being offtopic.
--
Sumana Harihareswara
Volunteer Development Coordinator
Wikimedia Foundation
The Wikimedia Research Committee is launching a survey to understand:
1) what data the Wikimedia Foundation should collect, host and share (on top of the public datasets that we already publish)
2) the technical and computational requirements that would allow you to reuse these data to build cool applications and run new research
Please give us your input and help us shape the future data/research infrastructure for Wikimedia.
http://bit.ly/WikimediaData
Best,
Dario
2011/12/1 Carol Moore <carolmooredc(a)verizon.net>
> On 11/29/2011 5:19 PM, emijrp wrote:
> >
> >
> > So, the first step would be to try and figure out if women are
> > visiting the site and not editing or just not visiting at all, before
> > saying nonsense about sexism and Wikipedia community.
>
> Fundraising from women is an interesting topic. You may think comments
> about sexism and the Wikipedia community are nonsense, but guess what.
> Women who take a lot of sexist nonsense AT wikipedia sure aren't going
> to donate TO wikipedia, are they?
>
> Also, since women in general are busier with work AND family
> responsibilities, so often the women who have the most time to edit are
> unemployed, disabled, retired or otherwise on limited incomes.
>
[citation needed]
Furthermore, editing Wikipedia only requires 30 minutes a day/week. I'm
sure all women waste more time watching TV. But watching TV is funnier for
most the people.
In the other hand, looks like women in all ages have time to waste in
Facebook
http://www.kenburbary.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Image1_thumb3.png And
gender balance is fifty-fifty.
Finally, if the reason for the low female editors proportion is time, how
can Wikipedia solve that? Are we going to pay to female editors for their
time?
> I can
> think of a few. Besides a ten spot here and a ten spot there, we can't
> give large amounts of money.
>
But there are women with big bucks out
> there giving lots to women-friendly organizations left and right. We
> must make Wikipedia women friendly to get their money.
>
You are wrong. To see donation banners and to donate only reading is
required, not editing. Are you going to say that only poor women read
Wikipedia?
By they way, making Wikipedia women friendly? What does that mean? Is that
a new politically correct science?
Better, make Wikipedia friendly to disabled people, the great forgotten
excluded people group. For example, blind people can't sign up because of
Wikipedia captcha (there is no sound captcha
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4845). That is a real
barrier which Wikimedia Foundation have to solve putting resources.
Where is the accessibility mailing list? Accessibility is a recommendation
by W3C since 1997, and we are in the top ten websites, as WMF likes to
boast.
> Anyway, putting down one of the main concerns of this list as nonsense
> is not helpful.
>
Sure. For your information, this mailing list is a insult to the real
excluded people.
>
> Thanks.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
