Attached is the announcement and table of contents of a new issue of the open-access journal "Human Computation". No Wikipedia-themed papers this time, but maybe certain articles are still interesting to some on this list.
Gruß,
Fabian
Human Computation – A Transdisciplinary Journal
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Volume 2 • Issue 1 • August 2015
Dear Reader,
Recent gatherings have inspired researchers to address field development challenges in human computation head-on via cogent analysis and carefully conceived recommendations. Some of these key community findings, both technical and ethical, are presented herein. We interpret these activities as a positive signal of community growth and field maturation.
Collectively yours,
Pietro Michelucci & Elena Simperl, Co-Editors-in-Chief
(Read the full Letter from the Editors here: http://goo.gl/i4hRuC)
This issue features:
# Opinion · Crowdsourcing and the Semantic Web: A Research Manifesto #
A roadmap guides the evolution of new research that is emerging at the exciting intersection of crowdsourcing and the Semantic Web.
· Cristina Sarasua et al.
→ read now: http://goo.gl/HrKY8Y
# Research· Privacy in Participatory Research: Advancing Policy to support Human Computation #
How do privacy-related policies align with actual practices in participatory systems? This study surveys the policies of 30 participatory research projects and finds that many host incomplete policies or inaccurately describe their practices.
· Anne Bowser-Livermore & Andrea Wiggins ·
→ read now: http://goo.gl/7CT92Q
# Research· Home is Where the Lab is: A Comparison of Online and Lab Data From a Time-sensitive Study of Interruption #
Is it possible to engage the crowd online in long-duration, time-sensitive tasks that require continuous concentration?
· Sandy J. J. Gould et al. ·
→ read now: http://goo.gl/TAefPW
# Research· Crowdsourcing the mapping problem for design space exploration of custom reconfigurable architecture designs #
Coarse grained reconfigurable architectures (CGRAs) hold great promise for the portable/wearable electronics domain. This study demonstrates one way that the crowd can provide reliable mappings, outperforming a custom Simulated Annealing algorithm.
· Anil Kumar Sistla et al. ·
→ read now: http://goo.gl/9SYmBu
# Research· Crowds of Crowds: Performance based Modeling and Optimization over Multiple Crowdsourcing Platforms #
How can statistical simulations of crowds be used to optimize crowd-worker performance over multiple platforms? A platform recommendation tool can help.
· Sakyajit Bhattacharya, et al. ·
→ read now: http://goo.gl/B3T05o
If you would like to keep up to date on our activities and calls, you can follow us on https://twitter.com/HCjnl, or join us on https://www.facebook.com/hcjournal and https://www.linkedin.com/groups/Human-Computation-interdisciplinary-journal… . If you would like to receive quarterly new issue digests to your email, you can subscribe at https://tinyletter.com/HCjnl
To whome it may concern,
My name is David Strohmaier and I'm doing my Master Thesis. We
implemented a Quality Assisted Editor for Wikipedia, that should help to
detect quality flaws quite quickly.
Right now we are in the middle of evaluating the tool.
If you would spend us 15 - 25 minutes of your time you would really
help us with the evaluation.
All you have to do is evaluate the quality of two wikipedia articles.*
How to do it?
1. Please read the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria before you start.
Each question in the surveys is tagged with a hint on which criteria it
is targeting.
Wikipedia:Featured article criteria:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria
2. Open the first Wikipedia article (Doctor Phosphorus) and the
connected survey. It is important that you open the article of Doctor
Phosphorus with the link in the Mail, because a special article revision
is chosen!
Doctor Phosphorus:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doctor_Phosphorus&oldid=445748339http://goo.gl/forms/ESgoyfd8AD
3. Please fill out the survey. The questions concerning the whole
article should be answered based on the three sections you have read.
4. Open the second Wikipedia article (Moon) and the connected survey. It
is important that you open the article of Moon with the link in the
Mail, because a special article revision is chosen!
Moon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moon&oldid=670521118http://goo.gl/forms/PnlbMtA1X3
5. Please fill out the survey. The questions concerning the whole
article should be answered based on the three sections you have read.
Thank you!
I*f you have any questions, pls contact me: david.strohmaier(a)gmx.at
*
Best regards, David Strohmaier
*
-Apologies for cross-posting-
In June, two surveys were carried out at the request of Wikimedia
Nederland: one among editors of the Dutch language Wikipedia, and one among
the general public (the users of Wikipedia).
The first results of these surveys are now available. Below you will find
summaries of the main results, and links to the full reports.
Both surveys provide interesting insights - also in the light of the
ongoing discussion about community health. The challenge for Wikimedia
Nederland now will be to use these to develop better community support and
outreach programmes.
After the summer break, WMNL is planning a discussion with the community to
decide just that.
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions about these surveys.
*A. Survey among editors - summary of results (link to full report
<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/nl/d/d6/Report_survey_NLWP_editors.p…>)*
*New editors*: A large majority of editors recognizes the importance of a
continuous influx of new editors and feels that new editors are welcome. To
ensure that new editors will not drop out, care and guidance of newbies
must be improved.
*Diversity*: Only 11% of the respondents are women. Everyone recognizes, to
a greater or lesser extent, the disadvantages of limited diversity among
the editors. There is large support for the theory that low participation
of women negatively affects the coverage of topics in Wikipedia. The
atmosphere on Wikipedia is most often cited as a cause for low
participation of women; women mention it much more often as a cause than
men.
*Work Atmosphere*: Opinions are divided about the work atmosphere on the
Dutch Wikipedia. However, there are more editors dissatisfied with the
atmosphere than satisfied. The atmosphere is most frequently characterized
as quarrelsome and distrustful, and quite often also as constructive and
aggressive. A large group of editors on the Dutch Wikipedia has on occasion
been approached in a manner that they considered inappropriate; a small
group admits to having approached others in an inappropriate manner
themselves.
*Conflicts and Conflict Resolution*: The number of conflicts is seen as
high by the editors. Two in five editors state that in the past six months
they have been involved in a situation that felt like a conflict.There are
different opinions on the resolution of the conflicts. There are more
editors who indicate that conflicts are only sometimes or (almost) never
solved in a good way, than those who say this usually or always happens in
a good way. What is also striking is that a fairly large group has no
opinion on the number of conflicts and/or solution thereof.
Egos and stubbornness are considered to play a major role in the emergence
of conflict. Rules/guidelines and moderation by trained people are often
put forward as a solution.
*Communication*: The dialogue (communication) between editors is fragmented
across many channels and occurs in particular via talk pages. The editors
rarely communicate with each outside of Wikipedia, either in person or
online via social media. Wikimedia mailing lists, blogs, newsletters or
notice pages are not frequently read, and attendance of Wikimedia-organized
events in the Netherlands or abroad is limited.
*Wikimedia Nederland*: A large majority of respondents is familiar with
Wikimedia Nederland and about a quarter of the respondents is currently
also a member. (This is not representative of the overall population of
editors - we estimate 10% of active edtiors are members) Generally, the
respondents are satisfied with the (kind of) work WMNL does.
*B. Survey among readers (users) of Wikipedia - summary of results (link
to full report)
<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/nl/d/d6/Survey_among_readers_of_Wiki…>*
*Knowledge and use of Wikipedia are high, as is satisfaction.*
· Knowledge of Wikipedia and the number of users of Wikipedia have
increased significantly in recent years (2013-2015). Four in five Dutch
people now know about, and use, Wikipedia.
· Levels/frequency of use of Wikipedia have not increased. It is
possible that new users use Wikipedia less intensively.
· More than one tenth of Dutch people said they had installed the
Wikipedia app. That is a very high number.
· In general terms, a large majority thought the articles were very
readable and easy to use. The number of people who thought this was
slightly down on 2013.
*Awareness of matters relating to Wikipedia is falling*
· These are matters such as: the fact that everybody can post and
edit articles, that all text and photos are freely available and that
Wikipedia does not have any profit motive.
· This may also be linked to the arrival of new users who, for the
time being, may be less well-informed.*Slight increase in willingness to
contribute*
· There was a slight increase in the willingness to contribute
between 2013 and 2015. The main reasons people would not wish to write or
edit an article continue to be that people are not interested and/or would
not know what to write about.
Sandra Rientjes
Directeur/Executive Director Wikimedia Nederland
tel. (+31) (0)30 3200238
mob. (+31) (0)6 31786379
www.wikimedia.nl
*Postadres*: * Bezoekadres:*
Postbus 167 Mariaplaats 3
3500 AD Utrecht Utrecht
Hi everyone,
The folks cc-ed are carrying a study on an interface to create, compare,
and validated quality metrics for Wikipedia articles. They are looking for
participants who are experts in Wikipedia, and have knowledge about quality
metrics to participate in a study. Please check the following video and
contact them if you're interested to participate:
http://david-strohmaier.com/RankingTool/tutorialVideo.html
Eduardo, if you have a page on research meta, please link it here.
Otherwise, please consider making a page about your project here
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Index>.
Best,
Leila
Dear Wikimedia colleagues:
I am developing a proposal for a video series that's designed to introduce
Wikimedia to new contributors (particularly in GLAM and education
programs), and to motivate them to participate in the community in a
constructive way. I would appreciate your input. The video is intended for
translation into multiple languages; there are already volunteers for
Spanish and German translation.
The proposal's main draft page is here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Motivational_and_educational_vid…
The proposal talk page is here; it includes a draft outline of specific
subjects to cover:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants
talk:IEG/Motivational_and_educational_video_to_introduce_Wikimedia
Please note that the scope and budget of the project are still under
consideration. At this point it would be especially helpful to have input
on the subjects that the video should cover, and how best to cover them.
This information will help as the project scope and budget are refined.
Please add your questions and comments to the talk page.
If you would like to support the project with your endorsement, please do
so here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Motivational_and_educational_vid…
If you would like to volunteer to translate the video, please email me or
comment on the talk page.
Thanks and regards,
Pine
Hi Wikimedians,
WikiConference USA 2015 will be held *October 9–11* at the U.S. National
Archives in Washington, D.C.
Registration and scholarship applications are open. Session proposals may
be submitted.
Website: http://wikiconferenceusa.org
Pine
Hi everyone,
The next Research showcase will be live-streamed this Wednesday, July 29 at
11.30 PT. The streaming link will be posted on the lists a few minutes
before the showcase starts (sorry, we haven't been able to solve this, yet.
:-() and as usual, you can join the conversation on IRC at #wikimedia
-research.
We look forward to seeing you!
Leila
This month:
*VisualEditor's effect on newly registered users*By *Aaron Halfaker*
<https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Halfak_%28WMF%29>
It's been nearly two years since we ran an initial study
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:VisualEditor%27s_effect_on_newly_r…>
of VisualEditor's effect on newly registered editors. While most of the
results of this study were positive (e.g. workload on Wikipedians did not
increase), we still saw a significant decrease in the newcomer
productivity. In the meantime, the Editing
<https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Editing> team has made substantial
improvements to performance and functionality. In this presentation, I'll
report on the results of a new experiment designed to test the effects of
enabling this improved VisualEditor software for newly registered users by
default. I'll show what we learned from the experiment and discuss some
results have opened larger questions about what, exactly, is difficult
about being a newcomer to English Wikipedia.
*Wikipedia knowledge graph with DeepDive*
By *Juhana Kangaspunta* and
*Thomas Palomares (10-week student project)*
Despite the tremendous amount of information present on Wikipedia, only a
very little amount is structured. Most of the information is embedded in
text and extracting it is a non-trivial challenge. In this project, we try
to populate Wikidata, a structured component of Wikipedia, using DeepDive
tool to extract relations embedded in the text. We finally extracted more
than 140,000 relations with more than 90% average precision. We will
present DeepDive and the data that we use for this project, we explain the
relations we focused on so far and explain the implementation and pipeline,
including our model, features and extractors. Finally, we detail our
results with a thorough precision and recall analysis.
> To answer your point about "basic categorisation of the nature of edits" I
> have two words for you: Revision Scoring
As Adam Wight pointed out at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Revision_scoring_as_a_service…
the Mediawiki system doesn't allow the editor to categorize their
reason for reverting, so currently revision scoring as a service will
not actually categorize the nature of what it is learning.
Supervised learning tasks have the ability to include such categories,
and although something derived from the ontology at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_summary_legend
will be selectable, probably from radio buttons or a pull-down menu,
during the http://mediawiki.org/wiki/Accuracy_review
pilot, there will still be an "other" catch-all option.