It's not just "failed Wikipedias" but "successful
non-Wikipedias" that need to be highlighted and compared to Wikipedia
itself.

As someone who is doing their DPhil on deleted pages and banned users on Wikipedia, I think this is a glorious idea :) I am going to try and construct a good paragraph about critical research being welcomed and talk more with our CPOV group about this based on your suggestions and comments below.

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.

Ok! Will send onto the organizing committee. Any particular things I should add with the note about why he would be suited?

Best,

Heather.

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

Heather Ford

Oxford Internet Institute Doctoral Programme

www.ethnographymatters.net

@hfordsa on Twitter

http://hblog.org