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
Hi!
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
--
Alina ÖSTLING
PhD Candidate
European University Institute
www.eui.eu
For the last week or so I am getting the following error when trying to
use the http://wikidashboard.appspot.com/ tool: "403: User account
expired. The page you requested is hosted by the Toolserver user
wiki_researcher, whose account has expired. Toolserver user accounts are
automatically expired if the user is inactive for over six months. To
prevent stale pages remaining accessible, we automatically block
requests to expired content. If you think you are receiving this page in
error, or you have a question, please contact the owner of this
document: wiki_researcher [at] toolserver [dot] org. (Please do not
contact Toolserver administrators about this problem, as we cannot fix
it---only the Toolserver account owner may renew their account.)"
I've tried contacting the owner, and send an email to PARC
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PARC_%28company%29> (it's their project,
per the logo seen at the project page ) through their web form, but so
far - nothing. Can anyone help to contact them?
The tool is useful not only for research (I've used and I am sure so
have others here); it is also one of the tools used by Good Article
reviewers (and linked from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Good_article_tools)
Why we allow toolserver tools used by the community to expire in such a
confusing way is beyond me.
--
Piotr Konieczny, PhD
http://hanyang.academia.edu/PiotrKoniecznyhttp://scholar.google.com/citations?user=gdV8_AEAAAAJhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Piotrus
Hi everyone,
I am doing a lit review on the topic of democratic decision making on
Wikipedia. I wonder - what are your favorite papers on this subject?
So far the most extensive discussions I've found are
Black, Laura, Ted Welser, Jocely DeGroot, and Daniel Cosley. 2008
"Wikipedia is not a democracy": Deliberation and policy-making in an
online community."
Hilbert, Martin. 2009. The Maturing Concept of E-Democracy: From
E-Voting and Online Consultations to Democratic Value Out of Jumbled
Online Chatter
Klemp. Nathaniel J. 2010. From Town-Halls to Wikis: Exploring
Wikipedia's Implications for Deliberative Democracy.
Reagle's 2010 book subchapter on "Polling and Voting".
Firer-Blaess, Sylvain 2011. Wikipedia: an Example for Electronic
Democracy? Decision, Discipline and Discourse in the Collaborative
Encyclopedia
What did I miss?
In the broader scope, I'd also appreciate suggestions as to the best
readings in the area of Internet communities and democracy. To be more
precise, let me stress the word community here. The literature in
e-democracy and related terms is of course very broad, but I am
interested in studies of how online communities (like Wikipedia) make
(quasi?)democratic decisions. Wikipedians vote, and Wikimedians in
general do as well. How unique are they (are we...) in this? Who else
has such votes? Redditors? Slashdotians? Other groups? What are the
turnouts, trends? Would appreciate any information that comes to mind.
--
Piotr Konieczny, PhD
http://hanyang.academia.edu/PiotrKoniecznyhttp://scholar.google.com/citations?user=gdV8_AEAAAAJhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Piotrus
Hey wiki researchers,
My team at the Wikimedia Foundation, now including Aaron Halfaker who many
of you know, is embarking on work this year to try and engage more
anonymous editors. Particularly with an eye toward showing them the
benefits of registering an account.
Where I need your help is this: what are the best papers you know that
focus on anonymous (IP) contributors? Your collective understanding of the
literature here is far greater than mine. I'll be combing through the
archives of the Wikimedia Research Newsletter, but I'd greatly appreciate
any choice recommendations, sent to me off-list if that works for you.
Many thanks,
--
Steven Walling,
Product Manager
https://wikimediafoundation.org/
Hi everyone,
WMF researchers have agreed to participate in an office hour about WMF research projects and methodologies.
The currently scheduled participants are:
* Aaron Halfaker, Research Analyst (contractor)
* Jonathan Morgan, Research Strategist (contractor)
* Evan Rosen, Data Analytics Manager, Global Development
* Haitham Shammaa, Contribution Research Manager
* Dario Taraborelli, Senior Research Analyst, Strategy
We'll meet on IRC in #wikimedia-office on April 22 at 1800 UTC. Please join us.
Pine
Hi all - The CSCW DC is a great opportunity to meet with outstanding senior
researchers and students. As an alumn of the 2006 cohort, I highly
recommend it!
--
***Please forward to Ph.D. students at your institution***
The Doctoral Colloquium is a forum in which Ph.D. students meet and
discuss their work with each other and a panel of experienced CSCW
researchers and practitioners. The colloquium itself will begin with
dinner Saturday night February 15, 2014 and continue all day Sunday
February 16, 2014.
All submissions must be received by the chairs by 5:00pm (17:00)
Pacific Time on October 7, 2014. Submissions received after this date
will not be considered. All submissions will be acknowledged by email.
We welcome applicants from a broad range of disciplines and approaches
that inform CSCW, including anthropology, sociology, computer science,
cognitive science, organizational studies, and related fields. We are
particularly interested in applications from institutions and groups
that have not traditionally been well-represented at past CSCW
conferences.
Applicants should be Ph.D. students with an already well-established
direction of research relevant to CSCW, but whose research would
benefit from guidance provided by peers and senior colleagues at the
Doctoral Colloquium. Preference will be given to students who have a
defined topic and program of work e.g., who have proposed their topics
and are within 2 years of graduation within a 5 year program or are
half way through a 3 (or 4) year program.
The Colloquium committee will select approximately 15 participants who
will be expected to give short, informal presentations of their work
during the Colloquium, to be followed by extensive group discussion.
Participants will also present their research in an interactive poster
session during the main technical program of the conference.
Applicants should submit the following items by email to
dc2014(a)cscw.acm.org with the subject line "CSCW2014 Colloquium
Submission." All items below should be collated into one PDF file
named YOURNAME_CSCWDC2014.pdf (substitute your full name where it
reads YOURNAME):
* A FOUR-page overview of your doctoral research that describes your
research question, work in progress, and expected contributions. This
overview should also include (1) a paragraph that articulates what you
hope to gain from attending the CSCW Doctoral Colloquium, and (2) an
abstract of no more than 100 words. Your overview will be published in
the ACM Digital Library and distributed to all attendees as part of
the Conference Extended Abstracts. Please submit your overview in the
Extended Abstracts Format.
* A short (2-3 paragraph) biographical sketch on another page.
* An up-to-date curriculum vitae.
* Optionally, one publication that you feel best illustrates your
progress in your research.
* An email letter from your supervisor sent to dc2014(a)cscw.acm.org
indicating that they support your application to the colloquium and
that they agree that your research is at an appropriate stage for
participation. These letters should also make reference to how you
might benefit from the Doctoral Colloquium and how they expect that
you might benefit the other students in this group experience. The
email should have "CSCW Doctoral Colloquium: " + YOUR NAME in the
subject header.
Doctoral Colloquium Co-Chairs
Claus Bossen, Aarhus University
Darren Gergle, Northwestern Universitydc2014(a)cscw.acm.org