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:
The Subject Recruitment Approvals Group mentioned in the proposal
is being described at:
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:
University of Minnesota
I realized today that surprinsingly the Russian Wikiversity is better
ranked by Alexa than the English version (ru.wikiversity.org = 53.66% of
wikiveritsy.org´s traffic, en.wikiversity.org only 33.28%).
The description says:
"(...) it is relatively popular among users in the city of Velikiy
Novgorod (where it is ranked #121). While roughly 11% of visitors to
Wikiversity.org come from Russia, where it is ranked #6,106, it is also
popular in Algeria, where it is ranked #4,570."
On the other hand, according to Wikimedia stats, the English Wikiversity
site has much more Views/hr (4,068) than the Russian one (271) and it
also has much more articles (15,718 vs. 1,917).
So, I wonder what´s the reason for this discrepancy. Does anybody have
This is a nicely competent paper. Thanks for the heads up! SJ
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Gwern Branwen <gwern0(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> "We also found that there have been two bots (computer programs that edit Wikipedia)—BJBot and Jayden54Bot—that automatically automatically notified article editors about AfD discussions and recruited them to participate per the established policy. These bots performed AfD notifications for several months, and offer us an opportunity to study the effect of recruitment that is purely policy driven. We use a process like one described above to detect successful instances of bot-initiated recruitment: if a recruitment bot edited a user’s talk page, and that user !voted in an AfD within two days, then we consider that user to have been recruited by the bot.
>> Using the above processes, we identified 8,464 instances of successful recruiting. Table 2 shows a summary of who did the recruiting, and how their recruits !voted. We see large differences in !voting behavior, which suggests that there is bias in who people choose to recruit. (From these data we cannot tell whether the bias is an intentional effort to influence consensus, or the result of social network homophily .) Participants recruited by keep !voters were about four times less likely to support deletion as those recruited by delete !voters. The participants that bots recruited also appear unlikely to support deletion, which reflects the policy bias we observed earlier."
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
Samuel Klein identi.ca:sj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266
My name is Sanjay Kairam, and I'm a 1st-year PhD student at Stanford researching online social information systems. I'm currently working on the design of a system to help editors of Wikipedia articles on scientific topics by helping them more quickly find related scientific publications. I was hoping to make the eventual system as helpful as possible for the Wikipedia community, and I was hoping to speak with some editors who frequently edit these types of articles to help inform my design.
If you edit scientific articles frequently, or even if you happen to just read these articles frequently, your assistance would be much appreciated - if you happen to be in the Bay Area and would like to meet in person - even better! If you are willing to help, please email me at skairam at cs . stanford . edu. The insights you provide could potentially benefit the Wikipedia community as a whole and all readers who come to Wikipedia looking for scientific information. Thanks!
Following the discovery of the Wikipedia backups from 2001, and with much
appreciated help from Jospeh Reagle, I created excel files from the diff_log
and rcl_log files that together include all the edits from January 15th to
August 17th (the last in the backups). the files include the time of edit
and the editor's username and IP. While they are a bit buggy, and could use
some more editing (or preferably, conversion to wiki format), they are
simple, easy to work with (using searches and filters), and full of
If anyone is interested, I'd be happy to share them.
MathWikis-2011 SECOND CALL FOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Workshop on Mathematical Wikis (MathWikis-2011)
at ITP (2nd International Conference on Interactive Theorem Proving) 2011
Nijmegen, Netherlands, August 27th, 2011
INVITED SPEAKER: Joe Corneli: The PlanetMath Encyclopedia
BEST CONTRIBUTION/SYSTEM AWARD: 100 EUR (Sponsored by Henk Barendregt)
ABSTRACT SUBMISSION DEADLINE May 30th
Mathematics is increasingly becoming a collaborative discipline. The
Internet has simplified the distributed development, review, and
improvement of large proofs, theories, libraries, and knowledge
repositories, also giving rise to all kinds of collaboratively developed
mathematical learning resources. Examples include the PlanetMath free
encyclopedia, the Polymath collaborative collaborative proof development
efforts, and also large collaboratively developed formal libraries.
Interactive computer assistance, semantic representation, and linking
with other datasets on the Semantic Web are becoming very interesting
aspects of collaborative mathematical developments. The ITP 2011
MathWikis workshop aims to bring together developers and major users of
mathematical wikis and collaborative and social tools for mathematics.
TOPICS include but are not limited to:
* wikis and blogs for informal, semantic, semiformal, and formal
* general techniques and tools for online collaborative mathematics;
* tools for collaboratively producing, presenting, publishing, and
interacting with online mathematics;
* automation and computer-human interaction aspects of mathematical
* practical experiences, usability aspects, feasibility studies;
* evaluation of existing tools and experiments;
* requirements, user scenarios and goals.
Researchers interested in participating are invited to submit a short
(2-10 pages) abstract via EasyChair. Submissions will be refereed by the
program committee, which will select a balanced program of high-quality
Submissions should be in standard-conforming Postscript or PDF.
To submit a paper, go to the EasyChair MathWikis page
(http://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=mathwikis11) and follow the
Final versions should be prepared in LaTeX using the easychair.cls class
file (http://www.easychair.org/easychair.zip). Proceedings will be
published as EasyChair or CEUR Workshop Proceedings.
* Submission of abstracts: May 30th, 2011, 8:00 UTC+1
* Notification: June 23rd, 2011
* Camera ready versions due: July 11th, 2011
* Workshop: August 27th, 2011
* Jesse Alama
* David Aspinall
* Joe Corneli
* Cezary Kaliszyk
* Fairouz Kamareddine
* Michael Kohlhase
* Markus Krötzsch
* Christoph Lange (co-chair)
* Lionel Mamane
* James McKinna
* Piotr Rudnicki
* Carst Tankink
* Josef Urban (co-chair)
* Denny Vrandečić
Christoph Lange, Jacobs Univ. Bremen, http://kwarc.info/clange, Skype
Mathematical Wiki workshop at ITP 2011, August 27, Nijmegen, Netherlands
Submission deadline May 30, http://www.cs.ru.nl/mwitp/
I have just finished my second "teaching with Wikipedia" article. I'd
like to publish it in an established academic journal that, if possible,
supports open content. Unfortunately, I do not have much experience with
this sector of the journals (teaching/education/pedagogy journals), nor
with journal impact magic, and thus I'd very much appreciate your
suggestions where to publish. I have, of course, quickly Google'd few
open content teaching journals, but I admit, selfishly, that entering
the job market, I'd prefer my CV to include, if possible, higher-end
(In my sociology field, the most respected educational journal,
"Teaching Sociology", is, sadly, not open content...).
If anybody is interested in reading and commenting on my article in
question (tentatively titled "Wikis and Wikipedia as a Teaching Tool:
Five Years Later"), I have made it available on Google Docs (just let me
know and I'll send you a link, and enable commenting for your account).
PS. My old 2007 article (titled, unsurprisingly, "Wikis and Wikipedia as
a Teaching Tool") was published here:
I am still content with it for what it was in 2007, but by 2011, it is,
I'll be the first to admit it, rather obsolete.
Dept of Sociology
Uni of Pittsburgh
"To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on
one's laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski
Some time ago I was reading a blog created by a group of editors of the
Italian Wikipedia for the 10 years birthday of Wikipedia.  There was
an interesting series of posts written by some prominent members of the
community recalling their first experience with Wikipedia. What struck
me from these accounts is that several of them wrote they had spent some
time contributing anonymously before registering a user account.
I was wondering if there are any figures on how systematic the
phenomenon might be. Has anybody ever looked into this kind of questions
(not necessarily in the context of Wikipedia)?
Pointers to the literature would be very much appreciated :-)
: http://dieciannidisapere.it/ (in Italian)
Giovanni Luca Ciampaglia
Faculty of Informatics
University of Lugano
Bertastraße 36 ∙ 8003 Zürich ∙ Switzerland
The Wikimedia Research Committee  is currently considering a major overhaul of the research section on Meta-Wiki:
The practical reason to start this process is to clean up and streamline pages used by the Wikimedia community and by the Foundation to document internal research projects and policies. The ambitious goal it to make Meta:Research the main hub where all research on Wikimedia projects (be it internal or external) is discussed, reviewed and tracked. The objectives we are hoping to achieve in the short term with this project are the following:
make it easy for researchers to find the resources and WMF support they are looking for
bring as much transparency as possible to research involving the Wikimedia community, by reducing attrition between the community and researchers and making sure research is not disruptive of editor activity
design a scheme of incentives to increase researcher participation and to increase the number of projects included in the Wikimedia research directory
design a series of incentives to nudge researchers towards releasing their datasets under an open license and publishing/self-archiving their research results via open access outlets/repositories.
Our long-term vision aims to:
provide support to the publication of research data on Wikimedia projects via a unified open data infrastructure 
integrate structured bibliographic data into Meta:Research via whatever solution the community decides to adopt 
Many on this list are already actively involved in editing and maintaining Meta research pages. Your feedback and suggestions on this project would be very valuable.
 We are currently reviewing a number of solutions to set up a central repository of open research data: http://bit.ly/OpenDataPlatforms
 See the long discussion started on this list with this thread: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/2011-March/001361.html
Dario Taraborelli, PhD
Senior Research Analyst