Hi Richard,

I'd say there were many overlapping roles in Wikipedia, and those of us who take on the tasks of keeping the pedia free of vandalism and spam are probably more likely to do so under a pseudonym. I'd certainly recommend that those who edit under their own names don't get involved in the deleting of attack pages and certain other tasks that annoy hotheads. Ignoring death threats is so much easier when you know they can't find you.  As a community we also have a strong skew towards introversion, and I suspect this has some correlation with those who choose anonymity or pseudonymity. But as with credentials there are problems with half measures. Most people will recognise WereSpielChequers as an obvious pseudonym, but we have had people edit under pseudonyms that appear to be real names, including some of our most disruptive editors. Perhaps that would make a good topic for a researcher some time.

As for credentials there is the legacy of the Essjay incident. Those who want to assert their professional qualifications are of course free to out themselves completely - I've known editors whose userpage mutually links to a profile at their university. But anyone asserting that their view should prevail because they have a relevant qualification may have a credibility issue if they aren't prepared to create such a link.

The Article Feedback tool is covered at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Feedback_Tool personally I'm far from being a fan. I fear it will divert people from improving articles to commenting on them, the designers seem to have ignored the cost in volunteer time of wading through huge piles of crud to find the useful comments and it is an annoyingly large box that disfigures articles. But it is a major community attempt to get feedback from our readers, and its critics don't dispute that we want to serve our readers better. We just don't see the value in endless pages of "OMG dontcha just luv him" comments.

As for the focus on readers, most of the writers who I have chatted with about their motivation are very much motivated to communicate topics that are important to them to their readers. Some consider that what is important to them is or should be important to everyone. Others can be very frank in acknowledging that if they were being paid to write then they wouldn't be paid to write about their topic. ,  The difficulty when it comes to deciding "important" topics is that we can't agree what the important articles are.  Some consider the important ones to be those that other encyclopaedias cover, others would judge by transient fame and look at numbers of reads or numbers of searches. All those methods have their problems, I'm happy to concede that an article on a fairly minor popstar will get more readers in the next year than an article on an English Hill fort. But the Hill fort will still be there in a thousand years, and if you measure readership over a long enough period then  relative importance will look very different. That isn't to say that we don't have institutional biases, but we need to work with the grain of the community. Here in London we seem to be able to get volunteers to do outreach to some very disparate people, and IMHO that is one of the tricks to improving our coverage of areas where we are weak. "Can we have volunteers to spend an afternoon talking to some people from such and such an institution" is a much easier sell than "your topic isn't important, please write about this other topic instead".

WSC

On 6 September 2012 09:27, Richard Jensen <rjensen@uic.edu> wrote:
THANKS to WSC
Those are good points -- I have a few days to make edits to the page proofs; the article will appear in Oct 2012 J Military History.

Comments: I have not seen any editor make actual use of the Article Feedback tool -- are there examples?  Yes Wikipedians are very proud of their vast half-billion-person audience.  However they do not ask "what features are most useful for a high school student or teacher/ a university student/ etc"

As for who does the work, I looked closely at the big military articles especially 1812, & also WWI, WW2, Am Civil War, Am Revolution  and found that the occasional editors & IP's contributed very little useful content. That is also my experience with the political articles on presidents & prime ministers & main political parties.

Boasting like Mike Fink?-- well I  read 500+ requests for access to Questia, Highbeam etc.  and looked for what boasts editors actually make. As for higher degrees and scholarly publications, that does not cut much mustard on talk pages. Very few editors -- maybe 2%--mention their professional expertise on their user pages.  Fewer than 1% give real names that would permit validation of their claims.  in Academe these rates would be 99%

In a larger sense (but it's not in my article), perhaps there are two wiki communities, one for law enforcement & one for content. That is, we have vigilantes policing the encyclopedia and ranchers herding ideas and moving them to market. (I would use the farmer metaphor but growing a new crop sounds too much like OR). The cash market, however, consists of praise from other ranchers (as in FA), not from the half-billion customers whose opinion about the beef is not of interest.


At 05:59 PM 9/5/2012, you wrote:
Hi Richard, Interesting read, I noticed a few things, though its possible that some may simply be that you are writing in American English.


"The article itself runs 14,000 words" - suggest "The article itself runs to 14,000 words"

"That perspective is not of much concern inside Wikipedia, for it is operated by and for the benefit of the editors.i Only readers who write comments are listened to, and fewer than one in a thousand comments." That's an interesting point of view, I've heard concerns that we don't know enough as to what our readers want, however one of the primary motives of most editors that I know is to make humanity's knowledge freely available to the world, <http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Editor_Survey_Report_-_April_2011.pdf&page=8>http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Editor_Survey_Report_-_April_2011.pdf&page=8 and I've met a number of editors who are extremely focussed on the number of people who've read their work and ways to acquire more readers such as getting their work on Wikipedia's mainpage. Your own later comment "
Working on Wikipedia was most rewarding because it opened up a very large, new audience" being a typical Wikipedian sentiment. Neither of which accords with the idea that Wikipedia is operated for its editors. If you've found that to be the view of some of Wikipedia's academic critics it might be worth balancing that with information on the readership survey <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Readership_survey>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Readership_survey and the way that and other metrics have been used to try and find out what our readers want. I suspect that such criticisms also pre-date developments such as the Article Feedback tool.


"That task is handled by the "Wikipedia community," which in practice means a self-selected group of a couple thousand editors." As well as adding an of I'd suggest that your numbers are out. Most of the vandal fighting, categorisation, new page patrol and spam deletion is done a relatively small community of a few thousand. But the people who add content are an overlapping and rather larger group. How you measure the size of the community is complex, and many people ignore the IP editors who actually write a large part of the content and focus on the currently active editors who have done over a 100 edits in the last month - at 3400 or so that group isn't far from being a couple of thousand. <http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm>http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm But it is much larger when you consider the number of people who have contributed content in the past but may be less active now. Our 2,000 most active editors accounted for 20% of total edits a little over a year ago, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Top_Wikipedians_compared_to_the_rest_of_the_community.png>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Top_Wikipedians_compared_to_the_rest_of_the_community.png but even that grossly overstates our importance as the minor edits such as typo fixes are disproportionately done by us. Suggest: "That task is handled by the "Wikipedia community," which in practice means a self-selected group of a few thousand frequent editors and a much larger number of occasional participants.


"Wikipedia editors almost never claim authorship of published scholarly books and articles. That sort of expertise is not welcome in Wikipedia; editors rarely mention they possess advanced training or degrees" According to the editor survey 26% of our editors have either a masters or a PhD. Academic expertise is highly valued in Wikipedia, but it is best demonstrated by the quality of ones edits and especially your sourcing. Afterall most of our editors are here to share their expertise <http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Editor_Survey_Report_-_April_2011.pdf&page=8>http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Editor_Survey_Report_-_April_2011.pdf&page=8


"Wikipedia editors will boast like river boatmen about their output: how many years they have worked on the encyclopedia, how many tens or hundreds of thousands of edits they have made." There is some truth in that, but in terms of status within the community featured article contributions are a higher value currency than either tenure or edit count.


"They do not gain by selling their product, and anyone suspected of writing articles for pay on behalf public relations for an entity comes under deep suspicion.i As a result how many people read an article, or how its audience has grown or fallen, or how useful it has been to the general public are not among the criteria used to evaluate quality." That's an interesting synthesis, there certainly is a distrust of those who edit for pay, especially if they are from the PR industry. But I would suggest that the distrust is more a product of people's experience with editors who have difficulty writing neutrally about topics that they are being paid to promote. A couple of good contrasts were mentioned in the translation sessions at Wikimania in Gdansk in 2010, Google and its charity arm Google org both presented about paid editing they'd commissioned in Indic languages. The uncontentious operation was done by the charity arm, translating English Wikipedia articles on medical articles into various south Asian Wikipedia versions. Rather more contentious was the commercial part of Google, they created missing articles for their most common search terms, this lead to criticism from at least one editor that they were writing an encyclopaedia and didn't need articles on Hollywood stars. But the criticism




"The Wikipedia community uses kangaroo courts where the accused are brought before a self-constituted jury, operating without formal rules or defense counsel." That isn't too bad a description of the RFC process but ARBCOM is elected, and for things that don't reach Arbcom, only admins can block other editors and admins are not simply self selected.


"I taught military history but he never wrote on the war of 1812, and usually skipped over it in my lectures."
- Suggest dropping the word "he"


"That is a handful of established editors strongly resist any new additions." Suggest "That is when a handful of established editors strongly resist any new additions."

"The Military History Project is one of the largest and most energetic of these. It enrolls over 700 editors and is coordinated by Dank and a dozen volunteers who ride heard on 51,000 different articles. " I'm pretty sure it is the biggest WikiProject, and would suggest herd not heard.

"The problem is less severe in military history because academia does not favor the field and much of the next writing is done by self-trained scholars." next seems odd, best or new sound a little more plausible to me - but both would be guesses.


"My recommendation for improving military history on Wikipedia is to set up a program to help the most active military editors gain better access to published scholarship, gain an appreciation of the historiography, and start attending military history conferences." You might be interested in some of our GLAM outreach work, thus far I think that the military museums have been under-represented, but in London Wikimedia UK recently ran this: <http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2012/07/wikimedia-uk-and-jisc-join-forces-for-world-war-one-editathon/>http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2012/07/wikimedia-uk-and-jisc-join-forces-for-world-war-one-editathon/


"Germany has a strong chapter that handles the German language Wikipedia." I think you'll find that the Austrians and Swiss also get involved in DE wiki affairs, I suspect that there are several other languages where a chapter more closely aligns with a language. English of course has the UK, Australian and and Indian chapters as well as the three North American ones and many editors not covered by a chapter.

On a broader note, you might want to look through the logs for War of 1812 <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=War+of+1812>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=War+of+1812 It was first semi protected briefly in February 2006, was open for anyone to edit for most of 06 and 07, but with a few short gaps has been semi protected continually since 2010. There are very few articles that have been semi protected for as long, and much if not all of its subsequent reduced editing level will be from that. Semi Protection is known to sharply reduce editing. There is also a theory that people are reluctant to edit articles that have gone beyond their expertise, and this article will clearly be beyond the expertise of many.

Regards

WSC

On 5 September 2012 18:52, Richard Jensen <<mailto:rjensen@uic.edu>rjensen@uic.edu> wrote:
I have an essay that has just been accepted by the Journal of Military History on
Military History on the Electronic Frontier:
Wikipedia Fights the War of 1812

It deals with the history of the "War of 1812" article on Wikipedia, in context of military history and how Wikipedia operates.

<http://www.americanhistoryprojects.com/downloads/6jensen-1812.docx>http://www.americanhistoryprojects.com/downloads/6jensen-1812.docx

I would welcome any feedback.

Richard Jensen
<mailto:rjensen@uic.edu>rjensen@uic.edu
User:Rjensen

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
<mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l


_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l


_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l