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
Hi all,
FYI, for those who do not regularly follow wikimedia-l, there's a
discussion going on there about Wikipedia surveys (sparked off by one
particular survey) that may be of interest to this list. See
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-July/073367.html
Briefly, the meta-question seems to be: we set up some researcher best
practices such that researchers should get approval via RCOM, but that
process is now not active. So now what? What should researchers do?
(Personally, I think the answer should be to resuscitate RCOM, but that's
easy to say and harder to do!)
-- phoebe
--
* I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers <at>
gmail.com *
Hello my friends,
Aiming the continuity of the education program in Brazil and more
participation of the Brazilian academy, I am proposing the creation and
recognition of a new user group with special focus on Education and
Research.
I would like to work closer to the international Wikimedia movement,
planning and executing activities with foreign universities and chapters.
Here is the proposal
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Brazilian_Group_of_Education_and_…
We are collecting endorsements and confirming some partnership while AffCom
is evaluating the proposal.
Best regards!
Rodrigo Padula
Education Program Coordinator - Brasil
Hello,
the iSchool, Telecom Bretagne (France) has a 3 years grant for a student
willing to do a PhD in France (it is the duration of PhD studies in
France). The grant is ~€1200 per month, which is quite comfortable for
Brest, with possibilities to teach (in English or in French) for
€300/month more.
The research can be done in English.
Skill in management theory and in computing are expected.
A master degree is compulsory.
The subject is available here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8IfgmZdkcDKcVNWdFB3MzJxbnc/edit?usp=shari…
People interested can apply, sending a résumé before September, 2
They will be contacted after this date for further discussion if needed.
Feel free to diffuse this announce.
Thanks in advance,
Nicolas Jullien
Here is a summary of the subject:
Communities aiming at producing a certain kind of knowledge, or
“epistemic communities”, and doing so online, are viewed as central in
the generation of new, innovative knowledge, because the organizations
increasingly rely on virtual teams to produce knowledge, but also
because of the ”open-innovation” relationships they create with those
online communities. Echoing the research on (virtual) team, two points
are particularly studied : the composition of the teams and the
management (leadership) of these communities, but those points are not
jointly studied and are poorly related to the existing literature on
virtual team and leadership in management.
New data extraction and analysis capacities, notably those developed by
a previous project and multidisciplinary research teams make it possible
to go beyond the actual studies, jointly studying the impact of the
structure and of the leadership of the virtual groups on their
performance. This, in order to provide 1) the managers of the virtual
communities with metrics and tools (dashboards) to evaluate and monitor
the efficiency of those communities, but also 2) the Institute (and the
companies) with a better understanding of the new skills the employees
may develop to work in those teams. The case study will be Wikipedia.
--
Maître de Conférences (HDR) / Associate Professor.
LUSSI - iSchool, M@rsouin. Institut TELECOM Bretagne & UEB
In charge of the Master "Information Systems Project Management and
Consulting"
http://www.telecom-bretagne.eu/studies/msc/information-systems-management/
Co-animator of the "ICT and Society" Institut Mines-Telecom's research
network
http://nicolas-jullien.lussi-ischool.eu/
Skype: Nicolas.Jullien1
Tel +33 (0) 229 001 245
TELECOM Bretagne, Technopôle Brest Iroise CS 83818
29238 BREST CEDEX 3
The Wikimedia Research Hackathon on August 6 and 7 takes place parallel to
the general Wikimania Hackathon in London.
Wikimania Hackathon information is available at
https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Hackathon
Research Hackathon information is available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Labs2/Hackathons/August_6-7th,_2014
>From the Research Hackathon info page: this "is an opportunity for anyone
interested in research on wikis, Wikipedia, and other open collaborations
to meet, share ideas, and work together. It's being organized by
researchers in academia and the Wikimedia Foundation, but we want anyone
interested in research to participate. Whether or not you consider yourself
a researcher, or would ever want to be one, come with questions, answers,
data, code, crazy ideas... or just your insatiable curiosity."
Local participation will occur at Wikimania London and in Philadelphia, PA,
US. Remote participation is possible and will include researchers and
community members globally.
Please see the Research Hackathon information page for scheduling and
sign-up details.
Further questions may be directed to Aaron Halfaker (ahalfaker(a)wikimedia.org)
or Leila Zia (leila(a)wikimedia.org).*
Pine
*A $1 fine will be imposed by Oliver Keyes on anyone who misspells Leila's
name or misdirects emails to the WMF Executive Director.
The wiki-research hackathon is just a week away. We have 5 idea-pages
started. Make sure to file yours before the event starts.
*Hackathon info:*
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Labs2/Hackathons/August_6-7th,_2014
*Submit your ideas here: *https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Ideas
*Current project ideas ...*
*At a glance:*
*1. Public quer**y interface for Labs *
*2. Screening WikiProject Medicine articles for quality changes *
*3. First edits for male and female newcomers *
4. Editor profiles and interactions
*5. WikiCredit: Measuring value added to Wikipedia *
*With more info: *
*1. Public query interface for Labs *(
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Ideas/Public_query_interface_for_L…
)
The MySQL databases available on labs have a sanitized, up to date copy of
all the Wiki's databases. This is incredibly useful for researchers. The
goal of this project is to make an easy to use, web-based querying
interface for researchers to run queries against Labs databases.
*2. Screening WikiProject Medicine articles for quality changes **(*
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Ideas/Screening_WikiProject_Medici…
)
Recent work in article quality assessment detection can enable us to
automatically identify which articles are most due to be re-assessed. Let's
apply this method to WikiProject Medicine's stubs.
*3. First edits for male and female newcomers *(
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Ideas/First_edits_for_male_and_fem…
)
Past work suggests female editors are more likely to be reverted. In this
study, we would explore the characteristics of articles that men and women
first edit to see if it yields any insight into the observed higher rate of
reversion of early edits of women.
*4. Editor profiles and interactions*
(
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Ideas/Editor_profiles_and_interact…
)
>From doing an analysis of user edit histories, we should be able to
identify “profiles”. Once profiles have been identified it would be
interesting to look at what happens when users of different profiles
interact, particularly when those interactions lead to one (or both)
commencing a “wiki break” soon after.
*5. WikiCredit: Measuring value added to Wikipedia *(
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Ideas/WikiCredit:_Measuring_value_…
)
Let's build a system that will measure and present value-added to
Wikipedia. Let's also consider the implications and design a system that
negotiates trade-offs well.
As part of the global Labs2 hackathon coinciding with Wikimania
(https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Labs2/Hackathons/August_6-7th,_201…),
Dan Andreescu and I are hosting a local hackathon in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
Where: Impact Hub Philly, 1227 N. 4th Street
When: August 7th, 2014, 10am to 8pm
More info: http://tinyurl.com/philly-wiki-research
The Wiki Research Hackathon is an opportunity for anyone interested in
research on Wikipedia, wikis, and other open collaborations to meet,
share ideas, and work together. Whether or not you consider yourself a
researcher, come with questions, answers, data, code, crazy ideas... or
just your insatiable curiosity.
People will be working on attributing credit to authors of wiki content,
screening medicine articles for quality, analyzing first edits for male
and female newcomers, and more. Join them or work on your own idea!
We're meeting at the Impact Hub in Philly and connecting online with
other groups around the world.
On August 6th, join us online, meet other researchers, and get set up to
access any data that you might need (optional).
Matt Flaschen
Hello,
the iSchool, Telecom Bretagne (France) has a 3 years grant for a student
willing to do a PhD in France (it is the duration of PhD studies in
France). The grant is ~€1200 per month, which is quite comfortable for
Brest, with possibilities to teach (in English or in French) for
€300/month more.
The research can be done in English.
Skill in management theory and in computing are expected.
A master degree is compulsory.
People interested can apply, sending a résumé before September, 2
Feel free to diffuse this announce.
Thanks in advance,
Nicolas Jullien
Here is a summary of the subject:
Communities aiming at producing a certain kind of knowledge, or
“epistemic communities”, and doing so online, are viewed as central in
the generation of new, innovative knowledge, because the organizations
increasingly rely on virtual teams to produce knowledge, but also
because of the ”open-innovation” relationships they create with those
online communities. Echoing the research on (virtual) team, two points
are particularly studied : the composition of the teams and the
management (leadership) of these communities, but those points are not
jointly studied and are poorly related to the existing literature on
virtual team and leadership in management.
New data extraction and analysis capacities, notably those developed by
a previous project and multidisciplinary research teams make it possible
to go beyond the actual studies, jointly studying the impact of the
structure and of the leadership of the virtual groups on their
performance. This, in order to provide 1) the managers of the virtual
communities with metrics and tools (dashboards) to evaluate and monitor
the efficiency of those communities, but also 2) the Institute (and the
companies) with a better understanding of the new skills the employees
may develop to work in those teams. The case study will be Wikipedia.
--
Maître de Conférences (HDR) / Associate Professor.
LUSSI - iSchool, M@rsouin. Institut TELECOM Bretagne & UEB
In charge of the Master "Information Systems Project Management and
Consulting"
http://www.telecom-bretagne.eu/studies/msc/information-systems-management/
Co-animator of the "ICT and Society" Institut Mines-Telecom's research
network
http://nicolas-jullien.lussi-ischool.eu/
Skype: Nicolas.Jullien1
Tel +33 (0) 229 001 245
TELECOM Bretagne, Technopôle Brest Iroise CS 83818
29238 BREST CEDEX 3
Thanks so much for the newsletter [1]! Always a great read...
But have to just say that comments like this: 'it is disappointing that the
main purpose appears to be completing a thesis, with little thought to
actually improving Wikipedia' [2] are really harsh and a little unfair. The
student is studying Wikipedia - they can hardly only be interested in
completing their thesis. We need to remember that researchers are at very
different stages of their careers, they have very different motivations,
and different levels of engagement with the Wikipedia community, but that
*all* research on Wikipedia contributes to our understanding (even if as a
catalyst for improvements). We want to encourage more research on
Wikipedia, not attack the motivations of people we know little about -
particularly when they're just students and particularly when this
newsletter is on housed on Wikimedia Foundation's domain.
Best,
Heather.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2014/June
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2014/June#.22Recommendi…
Heather Ford
Oxford Internet Institute <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/> Doctoral Programme
EthnographyMatters <http://ethnographymatters.net/> | Oxford Digital
Ethnography Group <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=115>
http://hblog.org | @hfordsa <http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa>
Hi all,
Further to the points raised in this thread, I have included a byline for the same reason I write the review - to increase dialogue and encourage a (not uncritical) collegiality among a group of researchers coming from diverse disciplines.
The newsletter is an important and unique space that has the potential to foster this interaction through gathering current research and also considering via effective and importantly *attributed* peer review, future research directions. And maybe even collaborations...
Cheers, Kim
(who conducts her research and is trying to make a living in a higher education system that is facing increased funding pressures, increased involvement from commercial partners, and has a tradition of valuing publication in high impact factor, often closed access journals...)
-----Original Message-----
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2014 08:30:59 +0100
From: Heather Ford <hfordsa(a)gmail.com>
I've been thinking about this and I want to make it clear what I'm
proposing:
* that we make a rule/standard/style that people writing substantive reviews (i.e. reviews beyond short summaries where the opinion of the review is clearly reflected) be accompanied by a byline underneath the headline i.e.
'New study shows Wikipedia as powerful new gatekeeper Heather Ford
A new study by Anna Awesomepants has found that....'
The nature of the newsletter is such that the work is most often divided so that individual authors write reviews of individual articles, but if there are cases where more than one person has reviewed an article, then both names can be added. I think the reviews need to be attributed with real names, especially if people are critiquing the work of named individuals.
It has been suggested in the past that anyone who wants to add their name to their review should just do so but that it doesn't have to be required.
This is problematic because there will still be unattributed reviews - and often those reviews are the problematic ones. Another suggestion has been that I oversee this process when the newsletter is developed. I don't mind doing this once or twice but I want this to be a rule/standard/style agreed to by this community so that Tilman, when he sets up the etherpad for the month can simply write at the top of the pad:
'Please write your name next to your review.'
I'm not always going to be able to review for the newsletter. Tilman and Dario coordinate this every month, but they need to be given a clear mandate. I'd rather make this explicit. I know that we're often afraid of rules in this community, but there are always rules - the difference is whether they're hidden or explicit. At least with the explicit ones we know how to oppose, comply with or add to them.
Then, a few responses to issues raised here:
Why looking at the edit history is not sufficient as attribution:
There are plenty of reasons why edit history does not serve as sufficient attribution.
a) Many reviews are actually produced in the etherpad before Tilman ports them over onto the wiki in which case the reviewer's name will not be visible.
b) More importantly, there are good reasons why Wikipedia uses this method for attributing authors of articles which are not relevant to the newsletter. Not every product works like Wikipedia; nor should it.
Wikipedia attributes opinions to reliable sources whereas what we're doing here is 'original research'. In Wikipedia, the source is always supposed to be named. The words: 'it is disappointing that the researcher didn't release their code' wouldn't legitimately appear in a Wikipedia article.
Instead, it would look something like this: 'According to Rev Researcher <cite>, 'It is disappointing that...' Or even better, 'according to some researchers <cite researchers A, B, C>...' but then the requirement is for more than one individual with a reputation in their community of expertise to be cited by name (not username or IP address but real name).
There are good reasons why we want to enable reviewers to assert their own opinion (preferably in a manner that is respectful and with the view to building relationships with researchers rather than alienating them). But then we need to have the academic integrity to attribute our opinions in order to invite dialogue with them.
Best,
Heather.
Heather Ford
Oxford Internet Institute <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk> Doctoral Programme EthnographyMatters <http://ethnographymatters.net> | Oxford Digital Ethnography Group <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=115>
http://hblog.org | @hfordsa <http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa>
On 3 July 2014 21:17, Taha Yasseri <taha.yaseri(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Stuart, Max, and Heather,
> But let's keep things simple and efficient (as it is right now).
> If we want to use bylines for all the contributions, then the next
> question would be whether we have to use the real names or Wikipedia
> user names or even IP addresses would be enough or not (IP address is
> enough in some of Stuart's examples).
>
> Of course if someone wants to add their name to the review, it should
> be allowed (as it is now), but it also doesn't mean that others can
> not edit that review.
>
> Also to address concerns about the sentiment and fairness of the
> reviews (which is a valid concern in general), again, everyone is
> welcome to have a look at the draft and the pre-release version to
> make sure that all the reviews are at a conventional quality.
> Usually Dario and Tilman send a link to the draft few days before the
> release and that's the best time for action.
>
> Best,
> Taha
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 8:50 PM, Heather Ford <hfordsa(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You're right, Stuart. Having a byline (and not worrying so much about
>> what is said) is probably enough because it would be clear who is speaking.
>>
>> I have reviewed in the past and want to start again now that I have a
>> bit more time. Dario, Tilman, you usually let us know when things
>> need to be reviewed on this list, right? Perhaps we can do something
>> similar when the newsletter is ready for a last proof as Joe
>> suggests. And since I've been so opinionated, I will chat to others
>> to try to help out streamline it a bit more because I know that
>> everyone is really pressed for time when it comes to the newsletter.
>> It's so great and important that I'm sure we can all help out a bit
>> more :)
>>
>>
>> Heather Ford
>> Oxford Internet Institute <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk> Doctoral
>> Programme EthnographyMatters <http://ethnographymatters.net> | Oxford
>> Digital Ethnography Group
>> <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=115>
>> http://hblog.org | @hfordsa <http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3 July 2014 17:58, Joe Corneli <holtzermann17(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Taha Yasseri <taha.yaseri(a)gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Your contributions are always very welcome.. (well, please do it
>>> > before the release of the issue, but in few cases we have changed
>>> > even
>>> after
>>> > the release, Tilman knows the best about this).
>>>
>>> I've just subscribed to the newsletter as a mailing list - via
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/research-newsletter
>>>
>>> ... But perhaps it would be useful to have a pre-release version of
>>> the mailing list, that would send it out a day or two in advance of
>>> the "official" release to persons who might be interested to help
>>> edit (or at least proofread)?
>>>
>>> (I realize this might sound like crazy talk, but it's meant as a
>>> serious suggestion.)
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> .t
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/attachments/20140706/5…>