I really like the idea of some kind of annual award.
If someone puts it together before Wikimania, I can put it into the closing ceremony?
*Edward Saperia* Conference Director Wikimania London http://www.wikimanialondon.org/ email ed@wikimanialondon.org • facebook http://www.facebook.com/edsaperia • twitter http://www.twitter.com/edsaperia • 07796955572 133-135 Bethnal Green Road, E2 7DG
On 2 July 2014 10:15, Aaron Halfaker aaron.halfaker@gmail.com wrote:
Given that it seems we agree with Poitr's desire for research about Wikipedia to lead to useful tools an insights that can be directly applied to making Wikipedia and other wikis better, what might be a more effective strategy for encouraging researchers to engage with us or at least release their work in forms that we can more easily work with?
Here's a couple of half-baked ideas:
- *Wiki research impact task force* -- contacts authors to encourage
them to release code/datasets/etc. and praise them publicly when they do -- could be part of the work of newsletter reviewers. There are many researchers on this list who work directly with Wikimedians to make sure that their research has direct impact and their awesomeness is worth our appreciation and public recognition.
- *Yearly research award* -- for the most directly impactful research
projects/researchers similar to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_France_Research_Award. One of the focuses of the judging could be the direct impact that the work has had.
-Aaron
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Heather Ford hfordsa@gmail.com wrote:
Apologies. You're right, Han-Teng. The reviewer looks to be Piotr Konieczny who I think is on this mailing list?
Heather Ford Oxford Internet Institute http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk Doctoral Programme EthnographyMatters http://ethnographymatters.net | Oxford Digital Ethnography Group http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=115 http://hblog.org | @hfordsa http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa
On 2 July 2014 12:58, h hanteng@gmail.com wrote:
Heather, I am not sure who contribute that. Probably not Nemo. If this issue of newsletter is correctly attributed, the contributors include: Taha Yasseri, Maximilian Klein, Piotr Konieczny, Kim Osman, and Tilman Bayer. My suggestion is only a personal one, and I am not sure if it is against policies to make a few edits once the newsletter is out.
Thanks again to the contributors of the newsletter, my life is a bit easier and more interesting because of your work.
2014-07-02 15:35 GMT+07:00 Heather Ford hfordsa@gmail.com:
+1 Thanks for your really thoughtful comments, Joe, Han-Teng.
Nemo, would you be willing to add a note to the review and/or contacting the researcher?
Best, Heather.
Heather Ford Oxford Internet Institute http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk Doctoral Programme EthnographyMatters http://ethnographymatters.net | Oxford Digital Ethnography Group http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=115 http://hblog.org | @hfordsa http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa
On 2 July 2014 05:17, h hanteng@gmail.com wrote:
The tone of the sentence in question
'it is disappointing that the main purpose appears to becompleting a thesis, with little thought to actually improving Wikipedia'
could have been written as
'It would be more useful for the Wikipedia community of practiceif the author discussed or even spelled out the implications of the research for improving Wikipedia".
This suggestion is based on my own impression that [Wiki-research-l]has mainly two groups of readers: community of practice and community of knowledge. It is okay to have some group tensions for creative/critical inputs. Still, a neutral tone is better for assessment, and an encouraging tone might work a bit better to encourage others to fill the *gaps* (both practice and knowledge ones).
Also, the factors such as originally intended audience and wordlimits may determine how much a writer can do for *due weight* (similar to [[WP:due]]). If the original (academic) author failed to address the implications for practices satisfactory, a research newsletter contributor can point out what s/he thinks the potential/actual implications are. (My thanks to the research newsletter's voluntary contributors for their unpaid work!)
While I understand that the monthly research newsletter has itsown perspective and interests different from academic newsletters, it does not sacrifice the integrity of the newsletter to be gentle and specific. I would recommend a minor edit to the sentence as the the newsletter could be read by any one in the world, not just the Wikipedians. It is public/published for all readers, and thus please do not assume the readers know the context of Wikipedia research.
Best,
han-teng liao
2014-07-01 19:37 GMT+07:00 Heather Ford hfordsa@gmail.com:
> Thanks so much for the newsletter [1]! Always a great read... > > But have to just say that comments like this: 'it is disappointing > that the main purpose appears to be completing a thesis, with > little thought to actually improving Wikipedia' [2] are really harsh and a > little unfair. The student is studying Wikipedia - they can hardly only be > interested in completing their thesis. We need to remember that researchers > are at very different stages of their careers, they have very different > motivations, and different levels of engagement with the Wikipedia > community, but that *all* research on Wikipedia contributes to our > understanding (even if as a catalyst for improvements). We want to > encourage more research on Wikipedia, not attack the motivations of people > we know little about - particularly when they're just students and > particularly when this newsletter is on housed on Wikimedia Foundation's > domain. > > Best, > Heather. > > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2014/June > [2] > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2014/June#.22Recommendin... > > Heather Ford > Oxford Internet Institute http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/ Doctoral > Programme > EthnographyMatters http://ethnographymatters.net/ | Oxford > Digital Ethnography Group > http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=115 > http://hblog.org | @hfordsa http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
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
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
-- Oliver Keyes Research Analyst Wikimedia Foundation
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l