Hi Kiril
Let's just say that history has taught us to be risk-averse to
drive-by researchers.
Can you point us to other research output using this methodology? Do
you (or any of your team) have significant editing experience? Are you
familiar with the firestorm that is paid editing and sock puppetry??
cheers
stuart
--
...let us be heard from red core to black sky
On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 10:43, Kiril Simeonovski
<kiril.simeonovski(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Pine,
The findings from the research will be articulated to draw clear
conclusions about what causes utility and disutility from participation,
and how this is perceived by different editors. For instance, it is natural
to assume that editors come to contribute by adding content that will
remain visible, while blocks and reverted edits are risk factors that drive
them away, although different editors have different levels of risk
aversion. Similarly to any other research, the benefit for the community
and individual editors is going to be indirect but yet not insignificant to
be accepted in the future process of decision-making (if the research
demonstrates the existence of high level of risk aversion towards
something, then it automatically signals that doing that thing is harmful
for the environment).
I know that it's impossible to predict the extent to which this research
would make impact because the body of literature is very poor on
volunteer-driven environments in a dynamic setting but it's definitely
worth to start off something that might attract the attention of
researchers in this direction. At the end, the research is not meant to
carve rules in stone that any single editor should respect but rather to
suggest something that individuals and communities might find useful (the
means of doing this will definitely not turn Wikipedia into a laboratory or
put someone's privacy in danger).
Best,
Kiril
On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 9:43 PM Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Kiril,
Thank you for sharing your proposal.
I am concerned about the possibility of Wikipedia being used as a
laboratory for experiments that consume volunteers' time and/or
personal data, and don't benefit Wikipedia or its participants. Does
your research benefit the community, and if so, how? It sounds like
your research intends to develop a model of decision trees for
individual Wikipedians, and at first read I don't understand how the
individual research subjects or the community would benefit.
Sorry if this sounds defensive, but I hope that you understand why I'm
asking.
Pine
(
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 6:00 PM Kiril Simeonovski
<kiril.simeonovski(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
I am currently working on a research concerned with modelling user
behaviour on Wikipedia. The idea is to design a field experiment over a
random sample of Wikipedians in order to examine their risk preferences
and
define (dis)utilities that will be used in a
utility-maximisation model.
I have already submitted an abstract that got accepted for the
biennial Foundations
of Utility and Risk Conference 2020 <https://www.furconference.org/>
and my
future plans include presentation of the concept
at other research
conferences (including Wikimania 2020).
You can visit the project page
<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Modelling_Behaviour_in_a_Peer_Prod…
of this research on Meta. Your questions and comments are welcome at any
time. Thank you!
Best regards,
Kiril
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l