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
I'm designing an experiment and want a random sample of wiki articles.
The 'Random article' seems like a convenient way of generating these
with having to compile a list of the population of articles myself.
My hunch (based on clicking it lots and very little else), is that
'Random article' is a uniform sampling of pages in article namespace,
excluding redirects but including disambiguation pages. As implemented
on en.wiki (which is the wiki I'm starting on) it probably has a slight
bias against very recently created pages (due to cross-server
synchronization).
Has anyone looked into this?
cheers
stuart
I have now given some thought on how to get a more substantial
comparison between the different version, and would like you input on
the feasibility to do something like this
1.get articles to compare- take the X (1000?) last updates of iw links
from Wikidata. By doing this we find articles that are "alive". This can
also easily be done by a bot
2.for each article find the other language versions it resides in (if
none do not use this article).
2.1 And for each artciel on each language version, look into if the
lenght of this article is above Y bytes (with/without templates) and
have a least one references/source)
3.Add occurrences per version in the categories "very weak articles"
(below 500 ch and/or no sources) and "acceptable" ones
4.Calculate per language version
4.1 coverage by number of occurrences divided by total number of
articles looked into
4.2 quality (propotion of very weak articles)
Anders
The next Research & Data showcase will be live-streamed this Wednesday 6/18 at 11.30 PT.
The streaming link will be posted on the lists a few minutes before the showcase starts and as usual you can join the conversation on IRC at #wikimedia-research.
We look forward to seeing you!
Dario
This month:
MoodBar -- lightweight socialization improves long-term editor retention
by Giovanni Luca Ciampaglia -- I will talk about MoodBar, an experimental feature deployed on the English Wikipedia from 2011 to 2013 to streamline the socialization of newcomers. I will present results from a natural experiment that measured the effect of Moodbar on the short-term engagement and long-term retention of newly registered users attempting to edit for the first time Wikipedia. Our results indicate that a mechanism to elicit lightweight feedback and to provide early mentoring to newcomers significantly improves their chances of becoming long-term contributors.
Active Editors' Survival Models
by Leila Zia -- I will talk about first results in building prediction models for active editors' survival. A sample of such prediction models, their performance, and the important variables in predicting survival will be presented.
(reposted from Wikimedia-i)
I have several times asked for a professional quality study of our
different language versions, but not seen it exist or being done,
perhaps you know more on this list?. before we start the strategy work
I believe we should have basic facts on the table like this one
I therefor list here my subjective impression after daily looking into
the different version for 5-15 articles (new ones being created on
sv.wp) (I list them in order how often I use them to calibrate the svwp
articles).
enwp- a magnitude better then any other. main weakeness are articles on
marginal subjects that seems to be allowed to exist there, even if
rather bad, and without templates (noone cares to patrol these?)
eswp - a very good version, which in the general discussion are not
getting appropriate credit
dewp - good when the articles exist, but many serious holes. Is the
elitist way of running it, discouraging new editors in non obvious
subjects (that after time passes gets very relevant)?
frwp - also good, but somewhat scattered quality both in coverage and
the different articles (even in same subject area)
nlwp - very good coverage in the geographic subjects, decent quality on
articles but limited "world" coverage in areas like biographies
itwp - good articles but a bit italiancentered,
nowp - small but decent articles. Their short focused articletext
sometimes give more easyaccessed knowledge then an overly long one in
other languages
ptwp - the real disappointment. it is among the top ten in volume and
accesses but clearly missing a lot, and even existing articles are
uneven. I now use it even less then Ukrainian and Russian which I use
very seldom as the different alphabet makes it hard to understand the
article content
dawp,fiwp and plwp -Ok but only used by me for articles related to the
country
(arabic, chinese and japanese I almost never use, too complicated)
(I also use some smaller ones like sqwp , in these versions I have seen
serious quality problems not to be found in any of the above ones, I am
not sure they even have basic patrolling in place)
Anders
*Apologies for cross-posting*
This is just a quick reminder that only 5 days left to submit your full
paper to the SOCIAL NETWORKING & COMMUNITIES minitrack at the Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS). This is one of the
most popular and largest minitracks at the conference!
Full Papers Due: June 15, 2014
Conference Location: Kauai, Hawaii, USA
Conference Dates: January 5-8, 2015
More info: http://SocialMediaLab.ca/?page_id=9308
Minitrack co-chairs:
Anatoliy Gruzd, Dalhousie University
Caroline Haythornthwaite, University of British Columbia
Karine Nahon, University of Washington
Please contact Anatoliy Gruzd <gruzd(a)dal.ca> if you have any questions
or if you are interested in being a reviewer for the minitrack.
--
Anatoliy Gruzd, PhD
Associate Professor, School of Information Management
Director, Social Media Lab
Faculty of Management / Faculty of Computer Science
Dalhousie University
Canada
Phone: 902-494-6119
Fax: 902-494-2451
E-mail: gruzd(a)dal.ca
Research Lab: http://SocialMediaLab.ca
Homepage: http://AnatoliyGruzd.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/gruzd
Dear Wiki-Research-List instructors, teachers, faculty ...
If you use social media for one or more of your classes, we would like
to invite you to participate in an online survey. The survey should take
you no longer than 35 minutes to complete. This survey is being
conducted as part of a study on Social Media and Learning, supported by
the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) of Canada.
As a way to thank you for your participation in the survey, after
completion, you will be given the option to enter your name and email
address to enroll you in a random drawing to win one of three *Apple
iPad minis*! The random drawing will take place on October 1, 2014 and
the winner will be notified on the same day via email. Any optional
contact information provided cannot be connected to your survey responses.
If you would like to participate, please go to
http://tinyurl.com/SMlearningsurvey
PIs: Anatoliy Gruzd, Dalhousie University and Caroline Haythornthwaite,
University of British Columbia
*This survey has passed ethical review by both the Dalhousie University
and the University of British Columbia
--
Anatoliy Gruzd, PhD
Associate Professor, School of Information Management
Director, Social Media Lab
Faculty of Management / Faculty of Computer Science
Dalhousie University
Canada
Phone: 902-494-6119
Fax: 902-494-2451
E-mail: gruzd(a)dal.ca
Research Lab: http://SocialMediaLab.ca
Homepage: http://AnatoliyGruzd.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/gruzd
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "CAIS" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to cais-info+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to cais-info(a)googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Please forgive the crossposting. If you or someone you know who doesn't
understand enough about OERs have a handful of hours per week this fall,
please consider:
https://class.stanford.edu/courses/Education/OpenKnowledge/Fall2014/about
Stanford is trying to flip undergraduate instruction. My standard by which
I judge MOOCs are whether they tell students to refrain from communicating
with the instructors.
Lila Tretikov wrote:
>...
> Let's think big.
Okay, I would like to change my opinion about http://
strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Develop_systems_for_accuracy_review
While I still would love to work on it if I had the spare time, I would
also like to ask the Foundation to try to do it first. I feel the same way
about a strategic objective survey for increasing participation by
nurturing social change likely to increase potential volunteer editor spare
time, and I feel both are about equally important for the future of the
projects.
Best regards,
James Salsman
This is an interesting topic about RecentChanges and its many uses and variants. I'm copying Analytics, EE and Research lists because I hope that some of our colleagues from these lists will hop over to Wikimedia-l to participate in this discussion. [a]
In particular I would call my colleagues' attention to this section of Mingli's email:
"Content is only one aspect to observe, people are another:
* Who are the experts on some topics?
* Who are my buddies on some articles?
* Who did help me to improve an article originally I wrote?
In all, we may reshape our technical infrastructure in this direction for
new spaces of participation.
And finally, one open question for the system
designer:
* Towards better content and community, what is the most important things
we want our user to observe?"
I'll just note here some observability work on user contributions that has been done or is in progress.
1. User Analysis Tool [b], similar to the legacy tool by User:X!. Be sure to look at the "Future plans" tab.
2. Listen to Wikipedia [c] visualization tool of recent changes, mostly for aesthetics but there may be ways to adapt some of the ideas or code used here for other interesting purposes.
2. Snuggle [d] which is a tool that helps to identify good-faith and bad-faith new editors.
4. Finding a Collaborator [e] is a current research project, also see [f] a visualization example. As part of this work the researchers seem to have formulated a way of quantifying an editor's impact, although I haven't seen the formula yet. As you probably know the quality of edits and editors is a topic that gets discussed repeatedly.
5. WikiStats [g] which provides high-level statistics about Wikimedia projects.
6. WikiMetrics [h] cohort analysis, has a lot of potential for expanding its tool set.
7. For code and related technical contributions see [i].
8. There are a variety of tools next to users' requests at English Wikipedia's Requests for Permissions page [j] such as WikiChecker [k] and automated edits logs [l].
This is a good discussion and I would be happy to have an office hour meeting for live chat.
Pine
[a] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-June/072507.html
[b] https://tools.wmflabs.org/supercount/index.php
[c] http://listen.hatnote.com/
[d] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Snuggle
[e] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator
[f] https://depts.washington.edu/reflex/
[g] https://stats.wikimedia.org
[h] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimetrics
[i] http://korma.wmflabs.org/browser/
[j] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions
[k] http://en.wikichecker.com/user/?t=Jimbo%20Wales
[l] https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoedits/index.php?user=Jimbo%20Wales&lan…