In this
[study](http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.003…:
> Abstract: We test the effects of informal rewards in online peer
production. Using a randomized, experimental design, we assigned editing
awards or “barnstars” to a subset of the 1% most productive Wikipedia
contributors. Comparison with the control group shows that receiving a
barnstar increases productivity by 60% and makes contributors six times
more likely to receive additional barnstars from other community
members, revealing that informal rewards significantly impact individual
effort.
I wonder why it is limited to the top 1%? I'd love to see the analysis
repeated (should be trivial) on each decile. Besides satisfying my
curiosity, some rationale and/or discussion of other deciles would also
address any methodological concern about data dredging.
2012/4/25 Strainu <strainu10(a)gmail.com>
> Hi,
>
> Are there any statistics about the number of visitors that go from
> Wikipedia to different websites linked with external links?
Hi;
I don't think so. If you ask for them, perhaps you can get a random
anonymized sample.
We've
> recently seen some people adding external links (as references) to
> articles from different newspapers and I was wondering if it's really
> worth it for the newspaper to have someone add such links?
>
>
This paper[1] discuss a project to add links to Wikipedia and you can see
the results and how it improved visits.
Wikipedia uses nofollow, so adding links to your website doesn't increase
your pagerank, but it works fine for reaching new readers.
Theses sites[2] receive a lot of traffic from Wikipedia, for sure.
Regards,
emijrp
(Forwarding to the research mailing list.)
[1] http://www.dlib.org/dlib/may07/lally/05lally.html
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Emijrp/External_Links_Ranking
--
Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada. E-mail: emijrp AT gmail DOT com
Pre-doctoral student at the University of Cádiz (Spain)
Projects: AVBOT <http://code.google.com/p/avbot/> |
StatMediaWiki<http://statmediawiki.forja.rediris.es>
| WikiEvidens <http://code.google.com/p/wikievidens/> |
WikiPapers<http://wikipapers.referata.com>
| WikiTeam <http://code.google.com/p/wikiteam/>
Personal website: https://sites.google.com/site/emijrp/
Calling all PhD students who study Wikis and open collaboration! The
deadline for the WikiSym 2012 doctoral symposium is Friday, April 27. As a
prior participant, this is a great venue to get feedback on your research
design, theories, and methods from some outstanding scholars while
networking with other Wiki and open collaboration researchers. Bernie
Hogan<http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/?id=140>(Oxford Internet
Institute) will be leading the doctoral symposium this
year.
Details on applying are below.
=======
The WikiSym 2012 Doctoral Symposium is a forum in which Ph.D. students can
meet and discuss their work with each other and a panel of experienced
researchers and practitioners. The symposium will be held on August 26 in
Linz, Austria to coincide with Ars Electronica.
*Important dates:*
Apr 23, 2012 Application materials dueMay 21, 2012Notification of
acceptanceJuly
23, 2012Final versions of abstracts and research overviews dueAugust 23,
2012Doctoral Symposium
We encourage participation from all doctoral students doing work related to
open collaboration, regardless of their academic discipline. Relevant
disciplines include (but are not limited to) computer science, sociology,
psychology, anthropology, information science, cognitive science, rhetoric,
communications, and economics. Applicants should be PhD students with a
clear focus or programme of research. This workshop will help to strengthen
and sharpen the research focus and implementation, rather than generate
specific ideas for research. Preference will be given to students who
already have begun their dissertations and are within two years of
graduation.
The Symposium committee will select 8-10 participants. Participants will
present their work at the Symposium; each student presentation will be
followed by feedback from a faculty mentor and extensive group discussion.
*How to Apply:* Applicants should submit the following items through
the (EasyChair
Conference System<https://www.easychair.org/account/signin.cgi?conf=wikisym12>
)
A two-page overview of your doctoral research that describes your research
question, any work in progress, and expected contributions of the
dissertation as well as expectations for this doctoral symposium. This
overview should begin with an abstract of no more than 100 words. Please
submit in the CHI Extended Abstract Format (Word
Template<http://www.sigchi.org/chi2010/authors/chi2010extendedabstracts.doc>from
CHI 2010, please remove copyright notice)
- A half page biographical sketch, and a short paragraph about your
current supervisor including contact information.
*An up-to-date curriculum vita.
*Optionally, one publication as an indicator of your progress in your
research.
All submissions must be submitted by April 23, 2012. Use the same
application system as the original submissions, which will be open after
April 13th for Doctoral Symposium submissions, and include all relevant
material in a single contiguous document.
*Doctoral Symposium Chair*: Bernie Hogan, Oxford Internet Institute,
University of Oxford (bernie.hogan(a)oii.ox.ac.uk)
*Additional Faculty Mentors will be announced within two months of the
event, and students will be notified who is their Symposium mentor. *
Feel free to email the Chair with any questions.
--
Brian C. Keegan
Ph.D. Student - Media, Technology, & Society
School of Communication, Northwestern University
Science of Networks in Communities, Laboratory for Collaborative Technology
Dear Wikipedia contributors,
In the past few weeks, I have reached out to this community on
numerous occasions,
requesting help with my undergraduate honors thesis, which examines
Wikipedians’ motivations to contribute. For anyone who would like more
information about this project, a detailed description can be found here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Motivations_to_Contribute_to_Wikipe…
.
In my last email, I mentioned that I hoped to attain a sample size of at
least 100 Wikipedians, but had only received 52 responses. I am ecstatic to
report that I now have 82 responses – just 18 responses short of the
targeted sample size. If you have not taken the
questionnaire<https://us1.us.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_8ixU9RkozemzC4s>,
please consider donating approximately five minutes of your time to
complete it.
I am so grateful for the Wikipedia community’s support in this project and
will make a final draft of the paper available to the community.
If you have any questions or concerns about this study, please contact
Audrey Abeyta at audrey.abeyta(a)gmail.com.
Thank you in advance for your participation!
Audrey
UC Santa Barbara | Department of Communication
audrey.abeyta(a)gmail.com
This thread is a good candidate for wiki-research-l. Forwarding...
2012/4/18 Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod(a)mccme.ru>
> My message is inspired by discussion in this thread (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Wikipedia:Administrators%27_**
> noticeboard#Loss_of_more_and_**more_and_more_established_**
> editors_and_administrators<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Loss_o…>)
> on Englush Wikipedia. Whereas the thread itself is not relevant to this
> list, and the points get re-iterated on a regular basis, there were
> statements made there which contain quantitative estimates (for instance
> that 90% established users who leave do it because they get a new job or
> have their external life changed in some other way, and not because of
> harassment etc). Most probably these numbers are not really justified, but
> then I wanted to know what real numbers are. I am an Rcom member, but I can
> not recollect such research being accomplished (I might be wrong of
> course). I could not find data easily either (I spent half an hour because
> I remembered we had a Community Health initiative group which somehow
> evolved into the Movement Roles, but the Movement Roles pages on Meta do
> not talk about community health at all, and I could not even find an
> appropriate page to ask the question).
>
> After this long introduction, does somebody know / can point out the
> answers to the questions:
>
> 1. What is the average lifetime of a Wikipedia editor (for instance the
> one with at leat 1000 contributions)? I recollect smth about two years, but
> I am pretty sure I have never seen any research on this. How does it depend
> on the number of contributions?
>
> 2. What are the main reasons why these editors stop editing? Is this
> correct, for instance, that external reasons are much more important than
> internal (on-wiki troubles and wiki-related harassment) reasons? The same
> for say those above 10000 edits?
>
> Thanks in advance
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.**org <Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
>
--
Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada. E-mail: emijrp AT gmail DOT com
Pre-doctoral student at the University of Cádiz (Spain)
Projects: AVBOT <http://code.google.com/p/avbot/> |
StatMediaWiki<http://statmediawiki.forja.rediris.es>
| WikiEvidens <http://code.google.com/p/wikievidens/> |
WikiPapers<http://wikipapers.referata.com>
| WikiTeam <http://code.google.com/p/wikiteam/>
Personal website: https://sites.google.com/site/emijrp/
Dear Wikipedia contributors,
Your valuable opinions are needed regarding users' motivations to
contribute to Wikipedia. This topic is currently investigated by Audrey
Abeyta, an undergraduate student at the University of California, Santa
Barbara. You can read a more detailed description of the project here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Motivations_to_Contribute_to_Wikipe…
Those willing to participate in this study will complete a brief online
questionnaire, which is completely anonymous and will take approximately
ten minutes. The questionnaire can be accessed here:
https://us1.us.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_8ixU9RkozemzC4s.
The researcher hopes to attain a sample size of at least 100 Wikipedians;
as of now, only 52 have responded. Your contributions to this project's
validity are invaluable!
A final draft of the paper will be made available to the Wikipedia
community.
If you have any questions or concerns about this study, please contact
Audrey Abeyta at audrey.abeyta(a)gmail.com.
Thank you in advance for your participation!
Of interest... an altmetrics paper published this week, "Altmetrics in
the Wild: Using Social Media to Explore Scholarly Impact"
http://arxiv.org/html/1203.4745v1
counts Wikipedia citations as one possible alt-metric for scholars. I
got lost in the statistics around relationship between alt and
traditional metrics and use, but one of the takeaways is that around
5% of their sample of 24,331 articles from PLOS (everything ever
published in PLOS) were cited in Wikipedia.
The article is interesting for other reasons, but I am intrigued by
this 5% number. What do you think of this measure? At first I thought
-- "wow, 5% (1200 articles) is pretty high! We are doing a good job at
citing the scholarly literature!" Then I thought -- "actually,
considering all the bio articles on Wikipedia, it's pretty low!" Then
I thought "but this is only PLOS, which has only been around for a
decade, so actually that's pretty high!"
Anyway, an interesting paper for the bibliometrics geeks among us.
cheers,
phoebe
--
* I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
<at> gmail.com *
I thought this might be of interest to people on this list.
The email from Kropotkine (Board member of Wikimedia France) is in
French, and I'm not going to translate it all, but the gist of it is:
A book came out titled "The Real Difficulties of the French language
in the 21st Century". The author, Dominique Laurent, is an editor of
spellchecking software. In the course of his research to better his
software, he has studied a Wikipedia dump to find out what the most
common mistakes in French might be, and ended up writing a book to
present his findings.
A bit of statistics: The author studied 471 million words in more than
36 million sentences, and in the end analysed about 3 million
mistakes, made by round 120 000 users having contributed to Wikipedia.
He lists the 700 most common mistakes, their typology, the evolution
of mistakes based on a corpus of texts from 20 years ago, a
classification by absolute frequency (how many occurrences of one
mistake) and relative frequency (how many mistakes relatively to the
number of times a word is used) etc.
The book can be found here:
http://www.synapse-fr.com/boutique2/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=226
Question from Kropotkine I found interesting: how can such a work be
used to "train" our spellcheck bots on Wikipedia? :)
Cheers,
Delphine
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kropotkine_113
Date: 2012/4/10
Subject: [Discussions WMFr] Wikipédia comme corpus d'étude des
difficultés du français
To: discussions(a)lists.wikimedia.fr
Bonsoir.
Reçu au siège de l'association un livre : « Les vraies difficultés du
français au XXIe siècle », Dominique Laurent, Éditions Synapse
Développement.
Pourquoi je vous en parle ? Parce l'auteur nous « adresse ce livre à
titre d'information, considérant que c'est un juste retour des choses,
Wikipédia ayant en l'occurrence contribué indirectement à ce travail
». Ce monsieur, éditeur de logiciels professionnels de correction,
s'est servi d'un dump[1] complet des articles de Wikipédia pour faire
une analyse des fautes de français.
471 millions de mots dans plus de 36 millions de phrases, et au final
l'analyse de près de 3 millions de fautes commises par environ de 120
mille internautes ayant contribué à Wikipédia. Les 700 fautes les plus
courantes, leur typologie, l'évolution des fautes par rapport à un
autre corpus de textes datant d'il y a 20 ans, un classement par
fréquence absolue (nombre d'occurrences d'une faute) et par fréquence
relative (nombre d'occurrences d'une faute relativement au nombre
d'occurrences du mot), attribution d'une « importance » en s'appuyant
sur le barème de notation de l'agrégation de lettres (!), etc.[2]
Au passage, il est peut-être possible d'en tirer des informations
intéressantes pour les robots correcteurs qui scannent en permanence
le contenu de Wikipédia (à votre avis qui dresse un tel robot et
pourrait être intéressé par un exemplaire de l'ouvrage ?) et aussi
pourquoi pas pour alimenter les travaux et rapports de l'association
concernant la langue française.
J'avoue que je n'ai pas encore eu le temps de lire le livre, mais
c'est en tout cas un bel hommage à Wikipédia, au moins dans son aspect
base de données/corpus d'étude. Wikipédia ce n'est pas qu'une
encyclopédie, c'est aussi un énorme terrain de recherches et
d'analyses.
Est-ce que vous pensez que c'est une bonne idée que de le contacter
pour lui proposer de nous rédiger un billet pour le blog, sur le côté
« Wikipédia c'est une mine d'or pour les études de la langue française
» ? Oui ? Non ?
Dernière chose : avec une erreur tous les 170 mots, « le taux d'erreur
n'est pas si élevé ». C'est un pro qui le dit :)
++
Kropot.
[1] C'est-à-dire l'extraction sous forme de fichier informatique de
toutes les versions de tous les articles, et non pas uniquement de la
version en ligne. Ce qui permet de repérer l'introduction de la faute,
sa correction éventuelle, etc.
[2] En feuilletant, j'ai aussi aperçu quelques uns des plus beaux
trolls orthographiques de Wikipédia ;D
--
@notafish
NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost.
Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org
Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto - http://photo.notafish.org
Great news for all you procrastinators out there. The deadline for WikiSym
2012 paper, notes, experience reports, panels, and workshops has been
EXTENDED from April 7 to April 13.
So if you were on the fence about submitting before, you now have an extra
6 days to get those API calls, regressions, and participant observations
done, written up, and submitted to what is sure to be another great WikiSym
conference!
Details about the CFP are here:
http://www.wikisym.org/ws2012/bin/view/Main/Authors
Cheers!
Brian
WikiSym Publicity Co-Chair
--
Brian C. Keegan
Ph.D. Student - Media, Technology, & Society
School of Communication, Northwestern University
Science of Networks in Communities, Laboratory for Collaborative Technology