On 2 July 2014 15:37, Oliver Keyes <okeyes@wikimedia.org> wrote:
I feel like that might be a bit short-notice - papers need to be submitted, reviewed or voted on, so on and so forth. But it could be lovely to have a 'best presentation' award for WM itself!

Well, we could pick from things featured in the research newsletter, for example? How do you imagine the winner to be chosen? We can always do something more structured for next year. But this might be a good way to launch the idea of a research award.
 
Ed
 
On 2 July 2014 10:33, Edward Saperia <ed@wikimanialondon.org> wrote:

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
email • facebook • twitter • 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? 
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.
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 be completing a thesis, with little thought to actually improving Wikipedia'

could have been written as 
  
    'It would be more useful for the Wikipedia community of practice if 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 word limits 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 its own 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.



_______________________________________________
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



_______________________________________________
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