http://metameso.org/~joe/docs/peeragogy_pattern_catalog_proceedings.pdf
is a preprint of the paper "Patterns of Peeragogy" to appear in Proceedings of Pattern Languages of Programs 2015.
Abstract: We describe nine design patterns that we have developed in our work on the Peeragogy project, in which we aim to help design the future of learning, inside and outside of institutions. We use these patterns to build an “emergent roadmap” for the project.
This paper may be of interest to people here, particularly since we trace through the ways in which the patterns manifest in Wikimedia projects.
The final revision is due January 15th so comments before then still have a chance to improve the final document.
When it appears, the bibtex citation will be:
@inproceedings{patterns-of-peeragogy, title={Patterns of {P}eeragogy}, author={Corneli, Joseph and Danoff, Charles Jeffrey and Pierce, Charlotte and Ricuarte, Paola and Snow MacDonald, Lisa}, booktitle={Pattern {L}anguages of {P}rograms {C}onference 2015 ({PLoP'15}), {P}ittsburgh, {PA}, {USA}, {O}ctober 24-26, 2015}, editor={Correia, Filipe}, year={2015}, publisher={ACM}}
Hey Joe,
My big question is how these pedagogic maps factor in the negatives of peer production communities - harassment, toxicity - and route around or solve for them.
The inclusion of carrying capacity, and explicit recognition of the costs of labour overall, is great to see. But I would love to see roadmaps that factor in the "dark side" here, and the specific emotional labour costs of dealing with that dark side.
Without factoring those things in, the practical utility of the roadmaps - outside of publishing - is likely to be somewhat constrained and difficult to scale. And in a year where we have learned more and more about the costs around a lot of collaborative and communicative environments, from Wikipedia to Twitter, including these things (or recognising them) is really not optional. I don't see it discussed in your work (I admit that I may have just missed it, and please let me know if so!)
The patterns themselves are excellent, however, and I really like the structure of the work. I do wonder about the generalisability of some of the examples; in particular while Wikiprojects are _ideally_ a good starting point for a lot of newcomers I don't have the data to hand about whether, in practice, it is the starting point for a large proportion of users, and I don't see citations to that effect in your paper (although I do see the claim). It would be good if someone more informed about this particular question than I could chip in with what they've measured/observed in detail (I know some people have been studying Wikiprojects specifically, particularly James Hare)
On 28 December 2015 at 09:17, Joe Corneli holtzermann17@gmail.com wrote:
http://metameso.org/~joe/docs/peeragogy_pattern_catalog_proceedings.pdf
is a preprint of the paper "Patterns of Peeragogy" to appear in Proceedings of Pattern Languages of Programs 2015.
Abstract: We describe nine design patterns that we have developed in our work on the Peeragogy project, in which we aim to help design the future of learning, inside and outside of institutions. We use these patterns to build an “emergent roadmap” for the project.
This paper may be of interest to people here, particularly since we trace through the ways in which the patterns manifest in Wikimedia projects.
The final revision is due January 15th so comments before then still have a chance to improve the final document.
When it appears, the bibtex citation will be:
@inproceedings{patterns-of-peeragogy, title={Patterns of {P}eeragogy}, author={Corneli, Joseph and Danoff, Charles Jeffrey and Pierce, Charlotte and Ricuarte, Paola and Snow MacDonald, Lisa}, booktitle={Pattern {L}anguages of {P}rograms {C}onference 2015 ({PLoP'15}), {P}ittsburgh, {PA}, {USA}, {O}ctober 24-26, 2015}, editor={Correia, Filipe}, year={2015}, publisher={ACM}}
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
On Mon, Dec 28 2015, Oliver Keyes wrote:
My big question is how these pedagogic maps factor in the negatives of peer production communities - harassment, toxicity - and route around or solve for them.
Hi Oliver,
Thanks for the speedy and thought-provoking reply!
The question above is a good one. We did have a basic collection of "antipatterns", but didn't develop them in this paper, because thinking about antipatterns adds some complexity and we wanted to get the "positive" vision more firmly in mind first. With that accomplished, I'd love to write a sequel sometime about "Antipatterns of Peeragogy"!
Still, the current catalog should definitely help surface and do something about concerns. The strategy would be something like: start with the Scrapbook pattern and existing critiques, develop a short list of criticisms into A specific project, and build a Roadmap that involves others in addressing the issue that was identified.
A recent thread kicked off by Pine seems to be an example along those lines: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/2015-December/004927.h...
I do wonder about the generalisability of some of the examples; in particular while Wikiprojects are _ideally_ a good starting point for a lot of newcomers I don't have the data to hand about whether, in practice, it is the starting point for a large proportion of users, and I don't see citations to that effect in your paper (although I do see the claim). It would be good if someone more informed about this particular question than I could chip in with what they've measured/observed in detail (I know some people have been studying Wikiprojects specifically, particularly James Hare)
I've been impressed with some of my own earlier common-sensical guesswork that turned out not to hold water, and accordingly have tried to be careful to cite or footnote the Wikimedia evidence, but indeed that is one of the intuitive claims that is ^[citation needed]. Even though there are "many" users involved with Wikiprojects, the population might be oldtimers rather than new users. I'll look around a bit more, and/or adjust the claim to focus on current population of Wikiproject contributors rather than on the hypothesis that the projects are used for wiki onramping.
Joe
On 28 December 2015 at 10:03, Joe Corneli holtzermann17@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 28 2015, Oliver Keyes wrote:
My big question is how these pedagogic maps factor in the negatives of peer production communities - harassment, toxicity - and route around or solve for them.
Hi Oliver,
Thanks for the speedy and thought-provoking reply!
The question above is a good one. We did have a basic collection of "antipatterns", but didn't develop them in this paper, because thinking about antipatterns adds some complexity and we wanted to get the "positive" vision more firmly in mind first. With that accomplished, I'd love to write a sequel sometime about "Antipatterns of Peeragogy"!
Cool! This makes sense and is one of the concerns I've heard about including antipatterns and patterns together; that it leads to claims of a work "lacking focus". I would argue (just for myself, and editorial boards probably feel very very differently) that not including antipatterns makes a design pattern or template of limited applicability and so said editorial boards should be approving of it - but that's, again, just for me ;p.
Still, the current catalog should definitely help surface and do something about concerns. The strategy would be something like: start with the Scrapbook pattern and existing critiques, develop a short list of criticisms into A specific project, and build a Roadmap that involves others in addressing the issue that was identified.
A recent thread kicked off by Pine seems to be an example along those lines: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/2015-December/004927.h...
I do wonder about the generalisability of some of the examples; in particular while Wikiprojects are _ideally_ a good starting point for a lot of newcomers I don't have the data to hand about whether, in practice, it is the starting point for a large proportion of users, and I don't see citations to that effect in your paper (although I do see the claim). It would be good if someone more informed about this particular question than I could chip in with what they've measured/observed in detail (I know some people have been studying Wikiprojects specifically, particularly James Hare)
I've been impressed with some of my own earlier common-sensical guesswork that turned out not to hold water, and accordingly have tried to be careful to cite or footnote the Wikimedia evidence, but indeed that is one of the intuitive claims that is ^[citation needed]. Even though there are "many" users involved with Wikiprojects, the population might be oldtimers rather than new users. I'll look around a bit more, and/or adjust the claim to focus on current population of Wikiproject contributors rather than on the hypothesis that the projects are used for wiki onramping.
Yeah; from my own subjective experiences it's more oldtimers than newtimers, but this may also be common-sensical-but-not-holiding-water!
Joe
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org