Thanks very much, Valentin. I am forwarding your email to Wiki-research-l.
I am interested in the topic of editor engagement in general, and I am very
happy that you included work done by LauraHale, Hawkeye7 and I in your
literature review. Thank you!
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 4:58 AM, Valentin Münscher <
> Hello everyone,
> last year Wikimedia Deutschland cooperated with Beuth University of
> Applied Science concerning diversity in Wikipedia. Now we published the key
> conclusions and recommendation and translate the report into English, so
> that you and other interested people can also take a closer look on our
> work concerning diversity and maybe getting input for your own work.
> The English title is “Charting Diversity - Working together towards
> diversity in Wikipedia” and starts off with a review of the current
> situation in (the German) Wikipedia and then goes on to offer different
> concepts and possibilities how to improve diversity in Wikipedia.
> You find the document on Commons via this link
> Sebastian Horndasch
> and me, Valentin,
> from the education & knowledge departement of Wikimedia Deutschland will
> also bring paper copies to the Wikimania in London and we are looking
> forward to answer your questions and discuss your comments with you. Check
> our Wikimania user sides for our Wikimania timetables or write us an email,
> if you wanna get in touch with us:
> Sebastian: sebastian.horndasch(a)wikimedia.de
> Valentin: valentin.muenscher(a)wikimedia.de
> All the best,
> Valentin Münscher
> Bereich Bildung & Wissen
> Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> Tel. (030) 219 158 260
> Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch freien Zugang zu
> der Gesamtheit des Wissens der Menschheit hat. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
> ****Unterstützen Sie Freies Wissen mit einer SMS. Senden Sie einfach
> WIKI an 81190. Mit 5 Euro sichern Sie so die Verfügbarkeit und
> Weiterentwicklung der Wikipedia.****
> Gendergap mailing list
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
European University Institute
Following up on Lila's Wikimania keynote: what platforms and devices should
we have in mind when making decisions today or in the near future about
Wikimedia content creation and delivery?
*Large format displays?
*Health monitoring devices?
*Smart homes and buildings?
*Computer-led education systems in classrooms and remote learning?
*Driverless or semi-driverless cars?
*GPS-enabled devices of all sizes?
*Artificially intelligent consumers of Wikimedia content?
I would be interested in hearing others' thoughts.
The next Research & Data showcase
be live-streamed this Wednesday, 8/20 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
We look forward to seeing you!
*Everything You Know About Mobile Is WrW^Right: Editing and Reading Pattern
Variation Between User Types*
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 differences between types of edit and the editors who
*Wikipedia article curation: understanding quality, recommending tasks*
By *Morten Warncke-Wang**: In this talk we look at article curation in
Wikipedia through the lens of task suggestions and article quality. The
first part of the talk presents SuggestBot, the Wikipedia article
recommender. SuggestBot connects contributors with articles similar to
those they previously edited. In the second part of the talk, we discuss
Wikipedia article quality using “actionable” features, features that
contributors can easily act upon to improve article quality. We will first
discuss these features’ ability to predict article quality, before coming
back to SuggestBot and show how these predictions and actionable features
can be used to improve the suggestions.
*Bio: Morten Warncke-Wang is a PhD student at the GroupLens research lab,
University of Minnesota. His main research focus is artefact quality and
task recommendations in peer production communities. On the task
recommendation side he has maintained the Wikipedia article recommender
SuggestBot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SuggestBot) since 2010,
expanding it to support six languages and additional information about
recommended articles. His work on artefact quality looks at understanding
quality through features contributors can easily improve, using them to
both predict Wikipedia article quality and suggest improvement tasks to
You can find more information about his research on his homepage:
I would like to encourage those of us who may have missed Lila's keynote
speech at Wikimania to listen to it.  In her speech, Lila takes a long
view of Wikimedia's history and future. She talks about incremental and
disruptive changes that are happening socially and technologically such as
the shift toward mobile and wearable computing, and the use of technology
in the developing world. She also talks about modes of contribution, and
changes inside the Wikimedia projects that would encourage more people to
Thanks very much, Lila. I look forward to seeing how the trends and
opportunities that you describe are addressed in our new strategic plan.
Thanks Aaron and Jonathan. Siko and Edward have let me know that Qualtrics is available. I wanted to reach out to the community via this list as I'd like to be able to provide other researchers with practical guidance, too.
I think what I'm hearing is that things are in flux. I'm happy to help as I can!
> On Aug 9, 2014, at 5:02 PM, "wiki-research-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org" <wiki-research-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Send Wiki-research-l mailing list submissions to
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 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: A researcher asking for guidance re: surveys (Aaron Halfaker)
> 2. Re: A researcher asking for guidance re: surveys (Jonathan Morgan)
> 3. Re: A researcher asking for guidance re: surveys (Aaron Halfaker)
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2014 16:07:02 +0100
> From: Aaron Halfaker <ahalfaker(a)wikimedia.org>
> To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] A researcher asking for guidance re:
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> Hi Amanda,
> I'm sorry that no one has responded to your question yet. There's likely
> two reasons: (1) many of us are currently engaged in Wikimania'14 and (2)
> the timing of discussing a new subject recruitment request is tense due to
> an ongoing discussion about how external subject recruitment requests
> should be handled on-wiki.
> Whatever conversation is happening about the current process, there is a
> common practice that I recommend following for running your research on
> Wikipedia. (1) document your research proposal on meta and (2) engage in a
> conversations with the Wikipedians about your study to make sure that you
> won't inadvertently cause. If you reach out to me and/or Dario, we will
> help as much as I can. You've been through this process before, otherwise,
> I'd give more specific instructions.
> As for survey devices, I'd recommend that you use a service that allows you
> to have full control of the data. This is the best way to ensure that you
> prevents WMF staff from using external survey tools when surveying
> Wikipedia users because of these potential privacy implications. I am not
> a lawyer, but I assume that this policy would not necessarily apply to you
> and your work. If you do end up using an external service, you should
> explain the difference to your participants and make sure that they
>> On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 3:09 PM, Amanda Menking <amenking(a)uw.edu> wrote:
>> I’ve followed the discussion re: surveys on this list recently. As a
>> part of my Women and Wikipedia IEG , I’ll be deploying a survey re:
>> gender and Wikipedia. I very much want to be respectful of the community
>> and of my participants; I’d also like to have as many robust replies as
>> I realize there isn’t a standardized process, but if you’ve practical
>> guidance re: 1) recruitment (e.g., user talk pages vs. mailing lists vs.
>> notice boards) and 2) tools to use (e.g., SurveyMonkey vs. an internal
>> tool—which I’ve yet to discover), I’d love to hear your thoughts.
>> I’ve suggested that former IEG grantees mentor new applicants. As a part
>> of my work, I’d like to document ways in which researchers can engage
>> Wikipedians while respecting their time, eliciting the best possible
>> information, and reporting back to the community.
>> Amanda Menking (EN Mssemantics)
>>  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Women_and_Wikipedia
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
I've followed the discussion re: surveys on this list recently. As a part of my Women and Wikipedia IEG , I'll be deploying a survey re: gender and Wikipedia. I very much want to be respectful of the community and of my participants; I'd also like to have as many robust replies as possible.
I realize there isn't a standardized process, but if you've practical guidance re: 1) recruitment (e.g., user talk pages vs. mailing lists vs. notice boards) and 2) tools to use (e.g., SurveyMonkey vs. an internal tool-which I've yet to discover), I'd love to hear your thoughts.
I've suggested that former IEG grantees mentor new applicants. As a part of my work, I'd like to document ways in which researchers can engage Wikipedians while respecting their time, eliciting the best possible information, and reporting back to the community.
Amanda Menking (EN Mssemantics)
We are proud to announce the public service of our STICS search engine:
developed at the Max Planck Institute for Informatics, presented at the SIGIR 2014 as a demo.
By extending the Google slogan of "things, not strings" to support also entity categories, STICS provides powerful functionality for querying and analyzing news and other text corpora in terms of entities, semantic classes, and text phrases. STICS is based on state-of-the-art methods for named entity recognition and disambiguation (AIDA ), linking them to knowledge bases like YAGO and the Wikipedia category system. The online service currently has indexed 1,000,000 news articles since June 2013, with more than 22 million entity occurrences of 300,000 distinct entities.
You can search, for example, for presidents of the United States and the JFK airport, and see how STICS distinguishes between JFK and JFK:
We are looking forward to your feedback!
The STICS team
at the Max Planck Institute for Informatics
 J. Hoffart, M. A. Yosef, I. Bordino, H. Fürstenau, M. Pinkal, M. Spaniol, B. Taneva, S. Thater, G. Weikum. Robust Disambiguation of Named Entities in Text. EMNLP 2011 ( http://www.mpi-inf.mpg.de/yago-naga/aida - source available under the CC-BY-SA-NC license )
 J. Hoffart, D. Milchevski, G. Weikum. STICS: Searching with Strings, Things, and Cats. Demo at SIGIR 2014. ( http://www.mpi-inf.mpg.de/yago-naga/stics )