On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 7:57 PM, Fuster, Mayo <Mayo.Fuster(a)eui.eu> wrote:
Hello!
Thank you Heather for the note!. The call looks interesting to me, but I would suggest to
add gender inclusion as a topic at the call for paper, as it is a central problem in
Wikipedia.
+1
Mark Graham and I are co-chairs of the Wikipedia Track
at next year's WikiSym conference (now with added OpenSym!) and we're preparing
the call for papers to go out Friday week.
This might sound like a strawman proposal, or facetious or something,
but it's not. Let's simply call it a crazy subversive proposal. How
about organizing the Wikipedia Track as an anti-Wikipedia track?
There has been such great discussion on this list in
the past about what is currently missing from Wikipedia research
Yes, and this is a major sub-point: the main thing missing from
Wikipedia research is non-Wikipedia research.
One notable exception, I think, is Benjamin Mako Hill's "Almost
Wikipedia" talk. But I think this talk only starts a process of
inquiry. It's not just "failed Wikipedias" but "successful
non-Wikipedias" that need to be highlighted and compared to Wikipedia
itself.
In short, the purpose would be to engage in scholarly, "inciteful",
Wikipedia-bashing. What is irreparably flawed in the design? (More
politely: if we were to do it all over again, what would we do
differently?) Why is it so unappealing to potential women editors
(per above)? What are the other outstanding failures of Wikipedia?
Along with this initiative, I suggest inviting Domas Mituzas
(
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fuzheado/228629484/) to give a keynote.