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…>
Thanks for this. Forwarding to Analytics and Research for others who are
curious.
Pine
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 9:29 AM, Rachel Farrand <rfarrand(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
> This Tech Talk will be starting in 30 minuets. Thanks!
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 3:30 PM, Rachel Farrand <rfarrand(a)wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Hello!
> >
> > Please join Nuria Ruiz and Andrew Otto next Tuesday, July 15th at 10am SF
> > time/5pm UTC
> > <
> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=Analytics+Tech+Tal…
> >
> > for a 30 min tech talk. You can join our hangout or follow along on
> > youtube:
> >
> https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/103470172168784626509/events/c53ho5esd0luccd0…
> > (please note that a link to join the hangout will be posted in the
> comments
> > of this event just as it starts).
> >
> > You can follow ask questions on IRC during the talk in #wikimedia-dev.
> >
> > If you are not able to follow along live, a video recording will be
> posted
> > here
> > <
> https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/103470172168784626509/103470172168784626509/v…
> >,
> > to the MediaWiki YouTube channel immediately following the tech talk for
> > you to view at any time.
> >
> > More information about the tech talk:
> >
> > *Hadoop and Beyond. An overview of Analytics infrastructure*In this tech
> > talk we will be presenting the analytics infrastructure that we have
> > recently rolled out in production. By now probably everybody knows that
> > wikimedia hosts an instance of hadoop from which we are going to extract
> > pageview data in the near future. But .. how exactly does the data get
> > there?
> >
> > We will go over the path that webrequest log data takes from varnish to
> > kafka (a distributed log buffer) to hadoop and the challenges of
> deploying
> > this java-based infrastructure in production. We will also talk about how
> > can we query the data with hive, an SQL-like interface. How can you set
> up
> > this stack on vagrant to play with and, last but not least, how we used
> > hive recently to provide GLAM folks with image view stats:
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:GLAMwiki_Toolset_Project/NARA_an…
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
To clarify the proposal is:
1) only looking at new edits that add blocks of text over a certain size
2) only tagging those edits on a workspace page for further follow-up by an
experienced human editor
3) only running on articles of WikiProjects that want it and are willing to
follow-up (thus only WPMED for starters)
What it is NOT is: a tool to add notices to article space, a tool to warn
users on their talk pages, or a tool to look at old edits. It is also NOT
many other things. This is a very narrow proposal.
With respect to users who are adding content they own which they have
previously had published. What you do is you get them in an email to agree
to release it under a CC BY SA license and then send that email to OTRS.
With respect to the number of edits, WPMED gets about 1000 a day. If we say
about 10% are of a significant size (a rather high estimate) and if we say
copy and paste issues occur in 10% with a same number of false positives we
are looking at 20 edits to review a day. Those within the project are able
to handle this volume in a timely manner.
--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
*TL;DR:* Come do wiki research with us! Newbie, seasoned vet or
Wikipedian -- all are welcome. *August. 6th & 7th.* Overlaps with the
Wikimania'14
Hackathon <http://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Hackathon>. Global
event that includes virtual and local meetup groups in major cities. [ sign
up
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Labs2/Hackathons/August_6-7th,_201…>
]
Wikis work in practice, but not in Theory. Let's change that.
*The Wiki Research Hackathon* 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.
We will meet both virtually via google hangout and locally for those who
are able to attend local meetup groups. You can take part through a
persistent google hangout and IRC channel (#wikimedia-research
<http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=#wikimedia-research>) throughout the
day, even if there is no local meetup in your neck of the world.
Who can participate?
Everyone who is interested is welcome to participate. You don't have to be
a researcher or a programmer to get involved. We need your ideas, your
questions, and your insights into how wikis work, where wiki-work breaks
down and how things can be helped. Just find a meetup group
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Labs2/Hackathons/August_6-7th,_201…>
(local
or virtual) that works for you and add your name to the list of attendees.
*[ sign up
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Labs2/Hackathons/August_6-7th,_201…>
]*
How will we meet?
In order to be inclusive as possible, we'll be organizing both local and
virtual meetups. Local meetups are organized by Wikipedians all over the
world. Anyone is welcome to become a local host
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Labs2/Local_host>. We currently
have local meetups confirmed for London UK & San Francisco, CA.
Hosts will be responsible for determining how they'll organize their own
events and how they'll synchronize with others. It's generally recommended
that hosts organize their events around the global synchronization
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Labs2/Hackathons/August_6-7th,_201…>
periods
described below, but that may be impractical in certain circumstances.
Check with your host about how he/she plans to hand synchronization.
When will it happen?
It turns out that "*When will it happen?*" is a complicated question. Since
this hackathon is a global event, participants will be joining all over the
world, and due to the way that global time (and thus timezones) works, many
of us will be awake while others are sleeping.
In order to deal with pain due to timezones, local and virtual meetups will
be synchronized in sync groups based on similar timezones within the
Americas, Europe/Africa and Asia/Oceania. These groups share at least an
hour of overlap with nearby group(s). Meetup hosts can take advantage of
these overlapping periods to share ideas and results with neighboring sync
groups. If you are participating virtually, you are welcome to join
whichever local meetup(s) and synchronization groups fit your
location/schedule best.
*[ time table
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Labs2/Hackathons/August_6-7th,_201…>
]*
What will we do?
The Wiki Research Hackathon is an opportunity for anyone interested in
research on wikis, Wikipedia, and open collaboration to meet, share ideas,
and work together. It is targeted at Wikimedians, students, researchers,
coders and anyone interested in crunching and visualizing data, designing
new tools, and producing new knowledge about Wikimedia projects and their
communities.
The goal of this event is to:
- share knowledge about *research tools and datasets* (and how to use
them)
- ask burning *research questions* (and learn how to answer them)
- get involved in *ongoing research projects* (or start new ones)
- design new data-driven *apps and tools* (or hack existing ones)
Why are we doing this?
The scholarly research community studying Wikimedia projects, the Wikimedia
Foundation, and the Wikimedia community all have a shared interest in
answering research questions about Wikimedia projects using public
datasets, developing new tools and sharing their work with others. Let's
get together and support each other's work!
-Aaron
[[en:User:EpochFail <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EpochFail>]]
It should be relatively easy to catch a significant percentage of those
copyright violations with the assistance of automated search tools. The
trick is to do it at a large scale in near-realtime, which might require
some computationally intensive and bandwidth intensive work. James, can I
suggest that you take this discussion to Wiki-Research-l? There are a
number of ways that the copyright violation problem could be addressed and
I think this would be a good subject for discussion on that list, or at
Wikimania. Depending on how the discussion on Research goes, it might be
good to invite some dev or tech ops people to participate in the discussion
as well.
Pine
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 7:05 PM, Leigh Thelmadatter <osamadre(a)hotmail.com>
wrote:
> This is one of the best ideas Ive read on here!
>
>
> > Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 20:00:28 -0600
> > From: jmh649(a)gmail.com
> > To: wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org; eloquence(a)gmail.com;
> fschulenburg(a)wikimedia.org; ladsgroup(a)gmail.com; jorlowitz(a)gmail.com;
> madman.enwiki(a)gmail.com; west.andrew.g(a)gmail.com
> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Catching copy and pasting early
> >
> > Come across another few thousand edits of copy and paste violations again
> > today. These have occurred over more than a year. It is wearing me out.
> > Really what is the point on collaborating on Wikipedia if it is simply a
> > copyright violation. We need a solution and one has been proposed here a
> > couple of years ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Turnitin
> >
> > We now need programmers to carry it out. The Wiki Education Foundation
> has
> > expressed interest. We will need support from the foundation as this
> > software will likely need to mesh closely with edits as they come in. I
> am
> > willing to offer $5,000 dollars Canadian (almost the same as American)
> for
> > a working solution that tags potential copyright issues in near real time
> > with a greater than 90% accuracy. It is to function on at least all
> medical
> > and pharmacology articles but I would not complain if it worked on all of
> > Wikipedia. The WMF is free to apply.
> >
> > --
> > James Heilman
> > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> >
> > The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> > www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>
Hi Folks:
I just wanted to interject at this point that I and others are working on
organizing a conference to host the varied work of those teaching with
Wikipedia in higher education. I hope to have more details to offer soon.
Such a conference might be slightly different from the research discussed
on this list, but I anticipate that all manner of presentations focusing on
the intersection of higher education and Wikipedia will be present -- this
would include presentations on pedagogy, but also content focusing on the
epistemologies of Wikipedia and higher education systems.
More soon.
Yours,
Bob Cummings
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 10:45 AM, <
wiki-research-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Send Wiki-research-l mailing list submissions to
> wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> wiki-research-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wiki-research-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wiki-research-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: discussion about wikipedia surveys (Aaron Halfaker)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 08:45:17 -0700
> From: Aaron Halfaker <ahalfaker(a)wikimedia.org>
> To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> <wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] discussion about wikipedia surveys
> Message-ID:
> <CAKP=3WyxNsz4C=
> s5K1+q00hw29E+AWg+ydJhk+tdH6Ls4CGUcQ(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Kerry said:
> >
> > Because of the criticism of “not giving back”, could we perhaps do things
> > to try to make the researcher feel part of the community to make “giving
> > back” more likely? For example, could we give them a slot every now and
> > again to talk about their project in the R&D Showcase? Encourage them to
> be
> > on this mailing list. Are we at a point where it might make sense to
> > organise a Wikipedia research conference to help build a research
> > community? Just thinking aloud here …
>
>
> This is a bit different than the main topic, so I wanted to break it out
> into another reply.
>
> We just had Nate Matias[0] from the MIT media lab present on his work at
> the last showcase[1]. We also just sent out a survey about the showcase
> that includes a call for recommended speakers at future showcases[2]. As
> for a Wikipedia research conference, see OpenSym[3] (formerly WikiSym) and
> Wikimania[4] (not as researchy, but a great venue to maximize wiki research
> impact).
>
> 0. http://natematias.com/
> 1.
>
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Analytics/Research_and_Data/Showcase#July_20…
> 2.
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/2014-July/003574.html
> 3. http://www.opensym.org/os2014/
> 4. https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Aaron Halfaker <aaron.halfaker(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > Aaron, when I read that it is active because I had heard from others in
> > your team about a year or two ago that this wasn't going to be the
> vehicle
> > for obtaining permission going forward and that a new, more lightweight
> > process was being designed.
> >
> > 1) If anyone told you that we are no longer active, they were wrong.
> > 2) The "lightweight" process you refer to is what I linked to in enwiki
> > in my previous response. See again:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Research_recruitment
> >
> > Generally, there seems to be a misconception that RCom == paid WMF
> > activities. While RCom involves a relationship with the Wikimedia
> > Foundation, our activities as part of RCom are 100% volunteer and open to
> > participation from other Wikipedians (seriously, let me know if you want
> to
> > help out!), and as such, our backlog tends to suffer when our available
> > volunteer time does. FWIW, I became involved in this work as a volunteer
> > (before I started working with the WMF). With that in mind, it seems
> like
> > we are not discussing RCom itself which is mostly inactive -- so much as
> we
> > are discussing the subject recruitment review process which is still
> > active. Let me state this clearly: *If you send an email to me or Dario
> > about a research project that you would like reviewed, we will help you
> > coordinate a review. *Our job as review coordinators is to make sure
> > that the study is adequately documented and that Wikipedians and other
> > researchers are pulled in to discuss the material. We don't just welcome
> > broad involvement -- we need it! We all suffer from the lack of it.
> > Please show up help us!
> >
> > To give you some context on the current stats and situation, I should
> > probably give a bit of history. I've been working to improve subject
> > recruitment review -- with the goal of improving interactions between
> > researchers and Wikipedians -- for years. Let me first say that *I'm
> > game to make this better**.* In my experience, the biggest issue to
> > documenting the a review/endorsement/whatever process that I have come
> > across is this: there seems to be a lot of people who feel that
> minimizing *process
> > description* provides power and adaptability to intended processes[1].
> > It's these people that I've regularly battled in my frequent efforts to
> > increase the formalization around the subject recruitment proposal
> vetting
> > process (e.g. SRAG had a structured appeals process and stated
> timelines).
> > The result of these battles is the severely under-documented process
> > "described" in meta:R:FAQ <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:FAQ
> >.
> >
> > Here's some links to my previous work on subject recruitment process that
> > will show these old discussions about process creep
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_instruction_creep>.
> >
> > -
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Subject_Recruitment_Approvals_Group
> > -
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Subject_Recruitment_Approvals_…
> > -
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Research&oldid=3546001…
> > - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Research/Archive_1
> > - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Research/Archive_2
> --
> > Note that this was actually an *enwiki policy* for about 5 hours
> > before the RfC was overturned due to too few editors being
> involved in the
> > straw poll.
> >
> > For new work, see my current (but stalled for about 1.5 years) push for a
> > structured process on English Wikipedia.
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Research_recruitment See also
> > the checklist I have been working on with Lane.
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Research_recruitment/Wikipedian_che…
> >
> > When you review these docs and the corresponding conversations, please
> > keep in mind that I was a new Wikipedian for the development of WP:SRAG
> and
> > WP:Research, so I made some really critical mistakes -- like taking
> > hyperbolic criticism of the proposals personally. :\
> >
> > So what now? Well, in the meantime, if you let me know about some
> subject
> > recruitment you want to do, I'll help you find someone to coordinate a
> > review that fits within the process described in the RCom docs. In the
> > short term, are any of you folks interested in going through some
> > iterations of the new WP:Research_recruitment policy doc?
> >
> > -Aaron
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 2:38 AM, Heather Ford <hfordsa(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Agree with Kerry that we really need to have a more flexible process
> that
> >> speaks to the main problem that (I think) RCOM was started to solve i.e.
> >> that Wikipedians were getting tired of being continually contacted by
> >> researchers to fill out *surveys*. I'm not sure where feelings are about
> >> that right now (I certainly haven't seen a huge amount of surveys
> myself)
> >> but I guess the big question right now is whether RCOM is actually
> active
> >> or not. I must say that I was surprised, Aaron, when I read that it is
> >> active because I had heard from others in your team about a year or two
> ago
> >> that this wasn't going to be the vehicle for obtaining permission going
> >> forward and that a new, more lightweight process was being designed. As
> >> Nathan discusses on the Wikimedia-l list, there aren't many indications
> >> that RCOM is still active. Perhaps there has been a recent decision to
> >> resuscitate it? If that's the case, let us know about it :) And then we
> can
> >> discuss what needs to happen to build a good process.
> >>
> >> One immediate requirement that I've been talking to others about is
> >> finding ways of making the case to the WMF as a group of researchers for
> >> the anonymization of country level data, for example. I've spoken to a
> few
> >> researchers (and I myself made a request about a year ago that hasn't
> been
> >> responded to) and it seems like some work is required by the foundation
> to
> >> do this anonymisation but that there are a few of us who would be really
> >> keen to use this data to produce research very valuable to Wikipedia -
> >> especially from smaller language versions/developing countries. Having
> an
> >> official process that assesses how worthwhile this investment of time
> would
> >> be to the Foundation would be a great idea, I think, but right now there
> >> seems to be a general focus on the research that the Foundation does
> itself
> >> rather than enabling researchers outside. I know how busy Aaron and
> Dario
> >> (and others in the team) are so perhaps this requires a new position to
> >> coordinate between researchers and Foundation resources?
> >>
> >> Anyway, I think the big question right now is whether there are any
> plans
> >> for RCOM that have been made by the research team and the only people
> who
> >> can answer that are folks in the research team :)
> >>
> >> 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 17 July 2014 08:49, Kerry Raymond <kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Yes, I meant the community/communities of WMF. But the authority of
> >>> the community derives from WMF, which chooses to delegate such
> matters. I
> >>> think that “advise” is a good word to use.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Kerry
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> *From:* Amir E. Aharoni [mailto:amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il]
> >>> *Sent:* Thursday, 17 July 2014 5:37 PM
> >>> *To:* kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com; Research into Wikimedia content and
> >>> communities
> >>>
> >>> *Subject:* Re: [Wiki-research-l] discussion about wikipedia surveys
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> > WMF does not "own" me as a contributor; it does not decide who can
> >>> and cannot recruit me for whatever purposes.
> >>>
> >>> I don't think that it really should be about WMF. The WMF shouldn't
> >>> enforce anything. The community can formulate good practices for
> >>> researchers and _advise_ community members not to cooperate with
> >>> researchers who don't follow these practices. Not much more is needed.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
> >>> http://aharoni.wordpress.com
> >>> “We're living in pieces,
> >>> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 2014-07-17 8:24 GMT+03:00 Kerry Raymond <kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com>:
> >>>
> >>> Just saying here what I already put on the Talk page:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I am a little bothered by the opening sentence "This page documents the
> >>> process that researchers must follow before asking Wikipedia
> contributors
> >>> to participate in research studies such as surveys, interviews and
> >>> experiments."
> >>>
> >>> WMF does not "own" me as a contributor; it does not decide who can and
> >>> cannot recruit me for whatever purposes. What WMF does own is its
> >>> communication channels to me as a contributor and WMF has a right to
> >>> control what occurs on those channels. Also I think WMF probably
> should be
> >>> concerned about both its readers and its contributors being recruited
> >>> through its channels (as either might be being recruited). I think this
> >>> distinction should be made, e.g.
> >>>
> >>> "This page documents the process that researchers must follow if they
> >>> wish to use Wikipedia's (WMF's?) communication channels to recruit
> people
> >>> to participate in research studies such as surveys, interviews and
> >>> experiments. Communication channels include its mailing lists, its
> Project
> >>> pages, Talk pages, and User Talk pages [and whatever else I've
> forgotten]."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> If researchers want to recruit WPians via non-WMF means, I don’t think
> >>> it’s any business of WMF’s. An example might be a researcher who
> wanted to
> >>> contact WPians via chapters or thorgs; I would leave it for the
> >>> chapter/thorg to decide if they wanted to assist the researcher via
> their
> >>> communication channels.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Of course, the practical reality of it is that some researchers
> >>> (oblivious of WMF’s concerns in relation to recruitment of WPians to
> >>> research projects) will simply use WMF’s channels without asking nicely
> >>> first. Obviously we can remove such requests on-wiki and follow up any
> >>> email requests with the commentary that this was not an approved
> request.
> >>> In my category of [whatever else I’ve forgotten], I guess there are
> things
> >>> like Facebook groups and any other social media presence.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Also to be practical, if WMF is to have a process to vet research
> >>> surveys, I think it has to be sufficiently fast and not be overly
> demanding
> >>> to avoid the possibility of the researcher giving up (“too hard to deal
> >>> with these people”) and simply spamming email, project pages, social
> media
> >>> in the hope of recruiting some participants regardless. That is, if we
> make
> >>> it too slow/hard to do the right thing, we effectively encourage doing
> the
> >>> wrong thing. Also, what value-add can we give them to reward those who
> do
> >>> the right thing? It’s nice to have a carrot as well as a stick when it
> >>> comes to onerous processes J
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Because of the criticism of “not giving back”, could we perhaps do
> >>> things to try to make the researcher feel part of the community to make
> >>> “giving back” more likely? For example, could we give them a slot
> every now
> >>> and again to talk about their project in the R&D Showcase? Encourage
> them
> >>> to be on this mailing list. Are we at a point where it might make
> sense to
> >>> organise a Wikipedia research conference to help build a research
> >>> community? Just thinking aloud here …
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Kerry
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> *From:* wiki-research-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:
> >>> wiki-research-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of *Aaron
> >>> Halfaker
> >>> *Sent:* Thursday, 17 July 2014 6:59 AM
> >>> *To:* Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> >>> *Subject:* Re: [Wiki-research-l] discussion about wikipedia surveys
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> RCOM review is still alive and looking for new reviewers (really,
> >>> coordinators). Researchers can be directed to me or Dario (
> >>> dtaraborelli(a)wikimedia.org) to be assigned a reviewer. There is also
> a
> >>> proposed policy on enwiki that could use some eyeballs:
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Research_recruitment
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <
> >>> nemowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> phoebe ayers, 16/07/2014 19:21:
> >>>
> >>> > (Personally, I think the answer should be to resuscitate RCOM, but
> >>> > that's easy to say and harder to do!)
> >>>
> >>> IMHO in the meanwhile the most useful thing folks can do is subscribing
> >>> to the feed of new research pages:
> >>> <
> >>>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:NewPages&feed=atom&hid…
> >>> >
> >>> It's easier to build a functioning RCOM out of an active community of
> >>> "reviewers", than the other way round.
> >>>
> >>> Nemo
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >
> >
>
Hi all,
Starting December 2013, Research and Data has had eight showcases. We
would like to hear your feedback about them through this survey*:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/ResearchandData
The deadline for filling out the survey is Wednesday, July 30. We will
present the results in the August showcase.
Thanks in advance for your participation.
Best,
Leila
<https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/ResearchandData>
* Thanks to Abbey Ripstra for designing this survey for us. :-)
The next Research & Data Showcase will be live-streamed this Wednesday,
7/16 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!
Leila
This month:
*Night Terrors: Day and Night Cycles in Reader and Editor Behaviour*By
Oliver Keyes: Using new geolocation tools, we look at reader and editor
behaviour to understand how and when people access and contribute to our
content. This is largely exploratory research, but has potential
implications for our A/B testing and how we understand both cultural
divides between reader and editor groups from different countries, and how
we understand the transition of people from consumers to contributors.
*Using Open Data and Stories to Broaden Crowd Content*By Nathan Matias*:
Nathan will share a series of research on gender diversity online and
designs for collaborative content creation that foster learning and
community. He will also demo a prototype for a system that could leverage
open data to attract and support new Wikipedia contributors.
*Bio: Nathan Matias, who does research on cooperation across diversity, is
a PhD student at the MIT Center for Civic Media and Fellow at the Berkman
Center for Internet and Society, where he co-facilitates the Cooperation
working group. He also facilitates #1book140, The Atlantic's Twitter Book
Club.