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 am doing a PhD on online civic participation project
(e-participation). Within my research, I have carried out a user
survey, where I asked how many people ever edited/created a page on a
Wiki. Now I would like to compare the results with the overall rate of
wiki editing/creation on country level.
I've found some country-level statistics on Wikipedia Statistics (e.g.
3,000 editors of Wikipedia articles in Italy) but data for UK and
France are not available since Wikipedia provides statistics by
languages, not by countries. I'm thus looking for statistics on UK and
France (but am also interested in alternative ways of measuring wiki
editing/creation in Sweden and Italy).
I would be grateful for any tips!
Sunny regards, Alina
European University Institute
I'm starting a new project, a wiki search engine. It uses MediaWiki,
Semantic MediaWiki and other minor extensions, and some tricky templates
I remember Wikia Search and how it failed. It had the mini-article thingy
for the introduction, and then a lot of links compiled by a crawler. Also
something similar to a social network.
My project idea (which still needs a cool name) is different. Althought it
uses an introduction and images copied from Wikipedia, and some links from
the "External links" sections, it is only a start. The purpose is that
community adds, removes and orders the results for each term, and creates
redirects for similar terms to avoid duplicates.
Why this? I think that Google PageRank isn't enough. It is frequently
abused by farmlinks, SEOs and other people trying to put their websites
Search "Shakira" in Google for example. You see 1) Official site, 2)
Wikipedia 3) Twitter 4) Facebook, then some videos, some news, some images,
Myspace. It wastes 3 or more results in obvious nice sites (WP, TW, FB).
The wiki search engine puts these sites in the top, and an introduction and
related terms, leaving all the space below to not so obvious but
interesting websites. Also, if you search for "semantic queries" like
"right-wing newspapers" in Google, you won't find real newspapers but
"people and sites discussing about ring-wing newspapers". Or latex and
LaTeX being shown in the same results pages. These issues can be resolved
with disambiguation result pages.
How we choose which results are above or below? The rules are not fully
designed yet, but we can put official sites in the first place, then .gov
or .edu domains which are important ones, and later unofficial websites,
blogs, giving priority to local language, etc. And reaching consensus.
We can control aggresive spam with spam blacklists, semi-protect or protect
highly visible pages, and use bots or tools to check changes.
It obviously has a CC BY-SA license and results can be exported. I think
that this approach is the opposite to Google today.
For weird queries like "Albert Einstein birthplace" we can redirect to the
most obvious results page (in this case Albert Einstein) using a hand-made
redirect or by software (some little change in MediaWiki).
You can check a pretty alpha version here http://www.todogratix.es (only
Spanish by now sorry) which I'm feeding with some bots.
I think that it is an interesting experiment. I'm open to your questions
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/> |
| WikiEvidens <http://code.google.com/p/wikievidens/> |
| WikiTeam <http://code.google.com/p/wikiteam/>
Personal website: https://sites.google.com/site/emijrp/
I'm wondering if anyone has done any research into identifying which
articles in Wikipedia have associated video?
There is this category, which only has 280 or so articles:
It seems far from complete. Appreciate any advice or previous work in this
The background: I'm working with some grad students on staging a Wiki Makes
Video contest in April, and we'd like to do some measurement of the current
state of video in Wikipedia.
Thanks, and email me if you'd like to know more about the video project for
I am glad you find it useful. I also know it's not perfect, so really feel
free to improve ! You should thank
for it, it was all his idea.
Kraig, yes, I can chat between now and Monday. I am in Sofia, Bulgaria, so
that's UTC +2. Email me with what would be a good time for you.
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Dan Andreescu <dandreescu(a)wikimedia.org>wrote:
> Mariya's not on the Analytics list Kraig, I'm adding her and wiki-research
> back. I also wanted to thank you, Mariya, for doing this. It's a
> fantastic start to a project that, in my opinion, we've delayed too long.
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Kraig Parkinson <kparkinson(a)wikimedia.org
> > wrote:
>> And I forgot to say this is awesome. :) Thanks for doing this.
>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Kraig Parkinson <
>> kparkinson(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>> Hi Mariya,
>>> I'm working on making it easier for stakeholders and analysts to become
>>> familiar with the data and analytical models that we have. Would you be
>>> able to find moment to chat with me about what you put together?
>>> Here's a reference to the card I'm using to look into the issue:
>>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Jessie Wild <jwild(a)wikimedia.org>wrote:
>>>> cross-posting to Analytics.
>>>> (this is great, Mariya!)
>>>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 5:47 AM, Maria Miteva <mariya.miteva(a)gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>> As part of my internship with WMF I have created
>>>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Data - a single page
>>>>> introduction to Wikimedia-related data sources. Its intended to inform
>>>>> researchers abou the variety of Wikimedia data available.
>>>>> The page can definitely benefit from some review from the actual users
>>>>> of data. Please take a look and feel free to add or correct information.
>>>>> The "How-to" and "Existing tools" subsections definitly could be expanded.
>>>>> Also, http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Data/FAQ is still
>>>>> quite small and can definitely be improved.
>>>>> My internship is over in a few days. I will still be around some but
>>>>> if you see anything that can be improved please take the initiative and
>>>>> change it. If you don't feel comfortable doing it, write a note on the
>>>>> Talk page.
>>>>> Finally, I would like to encourage you to share any Wikimedia-related
>>>>> datasets you have or you know of, small or big, on
>>>>> http://datahub.io/group/wikimedia. The aim is to eventually have all
>>>>> Wikimedia-related data documented on the Wikimedia group on DataHub.
>>>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>>> *Jessie Wild
>>>> Learning & Evaluation *
>>>> *Wikimedia Foundation*
>>>> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
>>>> the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
>>>> Donate to Wikimedia <https://donate.wikimedia.org/>
>>>> Analytics mailing list
>> Analytics mailing list