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 Valerio,
This kind of request is a better fit for the Research mailing list. I've
included the email for that list in the To: line of this email reply.
Pine
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 4:15 AM, Valerio Schiavoni <
valerio.schiavoni(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear WikiMedia foundation,
> in the context of a EU research project [1], we are interested in accessing
> wikipedia access traces.
> In the past, such traces were given for research purposes to other groups
> [2].
> Unfortunately, only a small percentage (10%) of that trace has been made
> made available (10%).
> We are interested in accessing the totality of that same trace (or even
> better, a more recent one, but the same one will do).
>
> If this is not the correct ML to use for such requests, could please anyone
> redirect me to correct one ?
>
> Thanks again for your attention,
>
> Valerio Schiavoni
> Post-Doc Researcher
> University of Neuchatel, Switzerland
>
>
> 1 - http://www.leads-project.eu
> 2 - http://www.wikibench.eu/?page_id=60
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
I am currently on vacation and will not be able to answer your mail before
November 10. But I will get back then as soon as possible.
Best regards, Aileen Oeberst
I am currently on vacation and will not be able to answer your mail before
November 10. But I will get back then as soon as possible.
Best regards, Aileen Oeberst
Why do my emails to this list keep being randomly rejected? Is it a hint of
some kind?
Kerry
-----Original Message-----
From: ee-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:ee-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On Behalf Of ee-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tuesday, 28 October 2014 10:08 AM
To: kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com
Subject: RE: [Wiki-research-l] Research discussion: Visions for Wikipedia
You are not allowed to post to this mailing list, and your message has
been automatically rejected. If you think that your messages are
being rejected in error, contact the mailing list owner at
ee-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org.
I am currently on vacation and will not be able to answer your mail before
November 10. But I will get back then as soon as possible.
Best regards, Aileen Oeberst
Ditty,
Article quality is inherently subjective in the hard-AI sense. A panel of
judges will consider accurate articles full of spelling, grammar, and
formatting errors superior in quality to hoax, biased, spam, or out-of-date
articles with perfect grammar, impeccable spelling, and immaculate
formatting.
In my studies of the short popular vital articles (WP:SPVA) the closest
correlation with subjective mean opinion score quality I've found so far is
sentence length. But it has diminishing returns and the raw correlation is
+0.2 at best.
The entirely subjective nature of article quality is additional support for
automating accuracy review.
Best regards,
James
Both of the presentations at the October Wikimedia Research Showcase were
fascinating and I encourage everyone to watch them [1]. I would like to
continue to discuss the themes from the showcase about Wikipedia's
adaptability, viability, and diversity.
Aaron's discussion about Wikipedia's ongoing internal adaptations, and
the slowing of those adaptations, reminded me of this statement from MIT
Technology Review in 2013 (and I recommend reading the whole article [2]):
"The main source of those problems (with Wikipedia) is not mysterious. The
loose collective running the site today, estimated to be 90 percent male,
operates a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere that
deters newcomers who might increase partipcipation in Wikipedia and broaden
its coverage."
I would like to contrast that vision of Wikipedia with the vision presented
by User:CatherineMunro (formatting tweaks by me), which I re-read when I
need encouragement:
"THIS IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA
One gateway
to the wide garden of knowledge,
where lies
The deep rock of our past,
in which we must delve
The well of our future,
The clear water
we must leave untainted
for those who come after us,
The fertile earth,
in which truth may grow
in bright places,
tended by many hands,
And the broad fall of sunshine,
warming our first steps
toward knowing
how much we do not know."
How can we align ouselves less with the former vision and more with the
latter? [3]
I hope that we can continue to discuss these themes on the Research mailing
list. Please contribute your thoughts and questions there.
Regards,
Pine
[1] youtube.com/watch?v=-We4GZbH3Iw
[2]
http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikiped…
[3] Lest this at first seem to be impossible, I will borrow and tweak a
quote from from George Bernard Shaw and later used by John F. Kennedy:
"Some people see things as they are and say, 'Why?' Let us dream things
that never were and say, 'Why not?'"
Hey folks,
I'm breaking this thread of discussion out since it's not really relevant
to the thread it appeared in.
Personally, I'm not studying Wikipedia. I'm studying the nature of
socio-technical communities with Wikipedia as an interesting case study.
Wikidata might be an interesting case study for something, but personally,
I'm mostly interested in how mature communities/systems work & break down.
When it reaches maturity, I hope that Wikidata will benefit from what I
have learned.
-Aaron
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hoi,
> I agree when it is the only thing I said.
>
> Yes, I asked you personally and Toby ... and Erik (both of them and
> several times) and I always hear "good idea, should be easy, we ill look
> into it and we get back to you". But as I said, your reply is relevant when
> it is the only thing I said and it is not.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On 28 October 2014 13:43, Aaron Halfaker <aaron.halfaker(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Gerard. Did you file the feature request? If not, you are ranting at
>> the wrong mailing list.
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 3:20 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
>> gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hoi,
>>> Despair is a personal emotion. What makes you think that despair is an
>>> attack on a person? It is not. Oliver, I despair about what the Research
>>> list has become and, I will explain why.
>>>
>>> What I despair about is the overwhelming amount of Wikipedia related
>>> noise. Noise because it feels to me like the same subjects are covered in
>>> endless similar ways. I despair because when something new happens OUTSIDE
>>> of this, the English Wikipedia it is completely ignored.
>>>
>>> Much of what I hear feels like noise because it lacks practical
>>> relevance. Research, statistics could show "What are people looking for
>>> most in Wikipedia but cannot find". We do not have that because of no
>>> reason I can think of and, it has been promised often enough for years now.
>>> The Swedish Wikipedia finds that their bot generated articles has
>>> rejuvenated their Wikipedia but the research community is quiet about it..
>>> Ignores it ? Wikidata has statistics [1] its data has a real meaning about
>>> Wikipedia, about Wikidata and about the sum of all information AVAILABLE to
>>> us.
>>>
>>> The consequence of all this self promotion is that there is no attention
>>> for anything else.. Yes, we know there is a gender disparity but what about
>>> people with a mental health problem.. We have way more people editing who
>>> are "enriched" with a diagnosis than is average. What do our projects mean
>>> for them, does it help them with their self awareness, does it help them
>>> recover, is our community aware of it and how does it cope or fail to cope.
>>> What practical steps can we take to make these valuable contributors more
>>> secure, less anxious?
>>>
>>> Researching the same things over and over does not help us understand
>>> WIkipedia, our "other projects", our communities. It does not help us
>>> achieve our aim; it is "share in the sum of all knowledge", we do not even
>>> share all the knowledge that is available to us. Why not? How can we do
>>> this?
>>>
>>> Jane knows the tool that provides a selection of Wikipedias with search
>>> results from Wikidata. It works, Ori looked at it from a performance point
>>> of view. NOTHING NEEDS TO BE DONE TO IMPLEMENT IT. It does not happen. A
>>> research question would be "Why".
>>>
>>> The statistics for Wikidata are not up to date because the dumps are
>>> faulty. It is not clear, obvious that it is of real concern to the people
>>> responisble. However this data IS used to run specific bots based on what
>>> the numbers show. The numbers matter, the statistics matter they have a
>>> real demonstrable impact.
>>>
>>> What I am looking for is relevance and I find only research for more
>>> fine grained explanations not for solutions. It is why I despair, it is
>>> because it feels so much like a colossal waste of time when you consider
>>> that researching subjects with a different objective would help us forward
>>> so much.
>>>
>>> Maybe my expectations are unrealistic and people doing research are just
>>> another incrowd doing their own thing.
>>> Thanks,
>>> GerardM
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/stats.php?reverse
>>>
>>> On 28 October 2014 00:15, Oliver Keyes <okeyes(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If it's that trivial to implement, implement it.
>>>>
>>>> That's a very compressed way of saying; I think it's fine for us to
>>>> disagree on this list. But, really? Pine's email made you "despair"? It, by
>>>> inference, made you conclude he doesn't accept new things? You find the
>>>> absence of a feature actively irrational?
>>>>
>>>> It's okay for Pine's vision to be different from yours, or mine, or
>>>> Aaron's, or anyone else's. Wikimedia's ethos is not built on any one
>>>> person's vision: it is built on the sum of all of our hopes (in an ideal
>>>> universe). It's not a one-in, one-out system where ideas must be harshly
>>>> and actively countered so that yours can take primacy.
>>>>
>>>> So let's try and stay non-hyperbolic and civil on this list, please. As
>>>> a heuristic; if even /you/ feel a need to write an apology for your email
>>>> into an email, don't hit send.
>>>>
>>>> On 27 October 2014 17:14, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hoi,
>>>>> I read your mail again. It makes me despair.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wikimedia research is NOT about Wikipedia, not exclusively. When I
>>>>> read what is an inspiration to you I find all the reasons why Wikipedians
>>>>> do not accept anything new. Why we still do not have a search that also
>>>>> returns information on what is NOT in that particular Wikipedia. It is only
>>>>> one example out of many. It is however so easy to implement, it defies
>>>>> logic that it has not happened on all Wikipedias. It is just one example
>>>>> that demonstrates that we do not even share the sum of all information that
>>>>> is available to us.
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry,
>>>>> GerardM
>>>>>
>>>>> On 20 October 2014 08:23, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Both of the presentations at the October Wikimedia Research Showcase
>>>>>> were fascinating and I encourage everyone to watch them [1]. I would like
>>>>>> to continue to discuss the themes from the showcase about Wikipedia's
>>>>>> adaptability, viability, and diversity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Aaron's discussion about Wikipedia's ongoing internal adaptations,
>>>>>> and the slowing of those adaptations, reminded me of this statement from
>>>>>> MIT Technology Review in 2013 (and I recommend reading the whole article
>>>>>> [2]):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The main source of those problems (with Wikipedia) is not
>>>>>> mysterious. The loose collective running the site today, estimated to be 90
>>>>>> percent male, operates a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive
>>>>>> atmosphere that deters newcomers who might increase partipcipation in
>>>>>> Wikipedia and broaden its coverage."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would like to contrast that vision of Wikipedia with the vision
>>>>>> presented by User:CatherineMunro (formatting tweaks by me), which I re-read
>>>>>> when I need encouragement:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "THIS IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA
>>>>>> One gateway
>>>>>> to the wide garden of knowledge,
>>>>>> where lies
>>>>>> The deep rock of our past,
>>>>>> in which we must delve
>>>>>> The well of our future,
>>>>>> The clear water
>>>>>> we must leave untainted
>>>>>> for those who come after us,
>>>>>> The fertile earth,
>>>>>> in which truth may grow
>>>>>> in bright places,
>>>>>> tended by many hands,
>>>>>> And the broad fall of sunshine,
>>>>>> warming our first steps
>>>>>> toward knowing
>>>>>> how much we do not know."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How can we align ouselves less with the former vision and more with
>>>>>> the latter? [3]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I hope that we can continue to discuss these themes on the Research
>>>>>> mailing list. Please contribute your thoughts and questions there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pine
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] youtube.com/watch?v=-We4GZbH3Iw
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>> http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikiped…
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [3] Lest this at first seem to be impossible, I will borrow and tweak
>>>>>> a quote from from George Bernard Shaw and later used by John F. Kennedy:
>>>>>> "Some people see things as they are and say, 'Why?' Let us dream things
>>>>>> that never were and say, 'Why not?'"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>>>>> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>>>> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Oliver Keyes
>>>> Research Analyst
>>>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>>> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
I am currently on vacation and will not be able to answer your mail before
November 10. But I will get back then as soon as possible.
Best regards, Aileen Oeberst