On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 4:33 AM, Kim Osman <kim.osman(a)qut.edu.au> wrote: At the risk of drifting away from the initial theme in this thread, Kim's comment reminds me of: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Research_Ideas/Research_Hub If such an initiative were active, the newsletter would just represent the latest "ring" of growth, and the points of view it expresses would be tied to the concerns of such a project. I'd guess that the discovery of a thesis project that offers a new but still not fully tested idea would most likely be "exciting" rather than "disappointing" -- since the Research Hub would exist to find interesting new ideas and take them forward, relative to a crowdsourced (but not necessarily consensus) set of priorities. This would be a useful place -- and potentially a first stop -- for people who are interested in research on Wikipedia to engage, get ideas, present their work at different stages, get constructive feedback. Perhaps, as a way to build the community, it would become standard to invite people to write peer reviewed summaries of their own research, rather than or in addition to critical reviews. For example: I know it would be useful for me to have a place to discuss an unfunded IEG proposal and how to take the idea forward. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:IEG/PlanetMath_Books_Project#Agg… Here, we got points off especially for the line item "The project has demonstrated interest from a community it aims to serve." - which is quite similar to the evaluation of the MSc's work as "disappointing" because he didn't engage with Wikipedia(ns). But engagement goes both ways (or, all ways).

Hi all, as we are preparing for the publication of the upcoming July issue of the newsletter in the next few days (please take a look at the todo list at https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/WRN201407 and consider contributing a review or summary ;), I would like to thank everyone for the thoughtful discussion in this thread earlier this month. A few additional points: * It wasn't clear to me from this thread if anyone had actually notified the two authors of the paper about its coverage in the WRN and of this discussion; I subsequently did so on July 6, but haven't seen a reaction from them. * Regarding the idea of adding per-review bylines, I was a bit puzzled why no one remembered that the very same topic had already been discussed on this exact mailing list just a few months ago, see http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/2014-February/003291.h… . To quote myself from there: "Hi Heather, that's a cool idea, and we have actually been considering something like this already. While the names of the reviewers are prominently displayed in the byline on top (and also, many readers of the Signpost and the newsletter are of course experienced in reading version histories), showing them next to each review might be make attribution easier. We just haven't found the time to implement it yet, like with many other things for the newsletter. You are welcome to figure out a suitable format and add these attributions in the upcoming issue...". I am grateful that Heather and Han-Teng have now committed to take on this task for the next issue. As Taha indicates, there may be a few edge cases where one needs to make a call on whether a particular edit to a review merits an additional byline or not; I'm happy to provide input on these if needed. * I took the opportunity to map out a few other editorial tasks that are very worthwhile for leveraging the platform that the WRN has become, but which Dario and I frequently had to drop because of lack of time; see the separate thread and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Newsletter#Contributors_wante… . * Regarding the initial concern about the "disappointing" wording, I appreciate Heather reminding us that researchers should be treated fairly and I'm sure that this thread has been valuable feedback for the reviewer. Just in general though, while I generally encourage contributors to emphasize a paper's methodology and results in their coverage, I'd also like to clarify that the review format in the research newsletter does have room for informed, measured opinions about the reviewed research, as much as they provide value for the reader. And while we indeed can't expect all Wikipedia research to be motivated primarily be a desire to improve the encyclopedia, it's worth being aware that this particular project had been clearly positioned as a possible remedy for the (claimed) fact that "majority of the Wikipedia articles still suffer in quality" (http://hci.cs.umanitoba.ca/projects-and-research/details/intelwiki ), so it seemed legitimate to assess its practicality with respect to the goal of improving Wikipedia. On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 8:33 PM, Kim Osman &lt;kim.osman(a)qut.edu.au&gt; wrote: > Hi all, > > Further to the points raised in this thread, I have included a byline for the same reason I write the review - to increase dialogue and encourage a (not uncritical) collegiality among a group of researchers coming from diverse disciplines. > > The newsletter is an important and unique space that has the potential to foster this interaction through gathering current research and also considering via effective and importantly *attributed* peer review, future research directions. And maybe even collaborations... > > Cheers, Kim > > (who conducts her research and is trying to make a living in a higher education system that is facing increased funding pressures, increased involvement from commercial partners, and has a tradition of valuing publication in high impact factor, often closed access journals...) > > -----Original Message----- > > Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2014 08:30:59 +0100 > From: Heather Ford &lt;hfordsa(a)gmail.com&gt; > > > I've been thinking about this and I want to make it clear what I'm > proposing: > > * that we make a rule/standard/style that people writing substantive reviews (i.e. reviews beyond short summaries where the opinion of the review is clearly reflected) be accompanied by a byline underneath the headline i.e. > > 'New study shows Wikipedia as powerful new gatekeeper Heather Ford > > A new study by Anna Awesomepants has found that....' > > The nature of the newsletter is such that the work is most often divided so that individual authors write reviews of individual articles, but if there are cases where more than one person has reviewed an article, then both names can be added. I think the reviews need to be attributed with real names, especially if people are critiquing the work of named individuals. > > It has been suggested in the past that anyone who wants to add their name to their review should just do so but that it doesn't have to be required. > This is problematic because there will still be unattributed reviews - and often those reviews are the problematic ones. Another suggestion has been that I oversee this process when the newsletter is developed. I don't mind doing this once or twice but I want this to be a rule/standard/style agreed to by this community so that Tilman, when he sets up the etherpad for the month can simply write at the top of the pad: > > 'Please write your name next to your review.' > > I'm not always going to be able to review for the newsletter. Tilman and Dario coordinate this every month, but they need to be given a clear mandate. I'd rather make this explicit. I know that we're often afraid of rules in this community, but there are always rules - the difference is whether they're hidden or explicit. At least with the explicit ones we know how to oppose, comply with or add to them. > > Then, a few responses to issues raised here: > > Why looking at the edit history is not sufficient as attribution: > > There are plenty of reasons why edit history does not serve as sufficient attribution. > > a) Many reviews are actually produced in the etherpad before Tilman ports them over onto the wiki in which case the reviewer's name will not be visible. > > b) More importantly, there are good reasons why Wikipedia uses this method for attributing authors of articles which are not relevant to the newsletter. Not every product works like Wikipedia; nor should it. > Wikipedia attributes opinions to reliable sources whereas what we're doing here is 'original research'. In Wikipedia, the source is always supposed to be named. The words: 'it is disappointing that the researcher didn't release their code' wouldn't legitimately appear in a Wikipedia article. > Instead, it would look something like this: 'According to Rev Researcher <cite>, 'It is disappointing that...' Or even better, 'according to some researchers <cite researchers A, B, C>...' but then the requirement is for more than one individual with a reputation in their community of expertise to be cited by name (not username or IP address but real name). > > There are good reasons why we want to enable reviewers to assert their own opinion (preferably in a manner that is respectful and with the view to building relationships with researchers rather than alienating them). But then we need to have the academic integrity to attribute our opinions in order to invite dialogue with them. > > 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 3 July 2014 21:17, Taha Yasseri &lt;taha.yaseri(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > >> Thanks Stuart, Max, and Heather, >> But let's keep things simple and efficient (as it is right now). >> If we want to use bylines for all the contributions, then the next >> question would be whether we have to use the real names or Wikipedia >> user names or even IP addresses would be enough or not (IP address is >> enough in some of Stuart's examples). >> >> Of course if someone wants to add their name to the review, it should >> be allowed (as it is now), but it also doesn't mean that others can >> not edit that review. >> >> Also to address concerns about the sentiment and fairness of the >> reviews (which is a valid concern in general), again, everyone is >> welcome to have a look at the draft and the pre-release version to >> make sure that all the reviews are at a conventional quality. >> Usually Dario and Tilman send a link to the draft few days before the >> release and that's the best time for action. >> >> Best, >> Taha >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 8:50 PM, Heather Ford &lt;hfordsa(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >> >>> You're right, Stuart. Having a byline (and not worrying so much about >>> what is said) is probably enough because it would be clear who is speaking. >>> >>> I have reviewed in the past and want to start again now that I have a >>> bit more time. Dario, Tilman, you usually let us know when things >>> need to be reviewed on this list, right? Perhaps we can do something >>> similar when the newsletter is ready for a last proof as Joe >>> suggests. And since I've been so opinionated, I will chat to others >>> to try to help out streamline it a bit more because I know that >>> everyone is really pressed for time when it comes to the newsletter. >>> It's so great and important that I'm sure we can all help out a bit >>> more :) >>> >>> >>> 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 3 July 2014 17:58, Joe Corneli &lt;holtzermann17(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Taha Yasseri &lt;taha.yaseri(a)gmail.com&gt; >>>> wrote: >>>> > Your contributions are always very welcome.. (well, please do it >>>> > before the release of the issue, but in few cases we have changed >>>> > even >>>> after >>>> > the release, Tilman knows the best about this). >>>> >>>> I've just subscribed to the newsletter as a mailing list - via >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/research-newsletter >>>> >>>> ... But perhaps it would be useful to have a pre-release version of >>>> the mailing list, that would send it out a day or two in advance of >>>> the "official" release to persons who might be interested to help >>>> edit (or at least proofread)? >>>> >>>> (I realize this might sound like crazy talk, but it's meant as a >>>> serious suggestion.) >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> .t >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wiki-research-l mailing list >> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >> >> >