Hello, everyone,
The next Research Showcase, “Group Membership and Contributions to Public Information Goods: The Case of WikiProject” and “Thanks for Stopping By: A Study of ‘Thanks’ Usage on Wikimedia,” will be live-streamed next Wednesday, April 17, 2019, at 11:30 AM PDT/19:30 UTC.
YouTube stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmb5LoJzOoE
As usual, you can join the conversation on IRC at #wikimedia-research. You can also watch our past research showcases here: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Showcase
This month's presentations:
Group Membership and Contributions to Public Information Goods: The Case of WikiProject
By Ark Fangzhou Zhang
Abstract:
We investigate the effects of group identity on contribution behavior on the English Wikipedia, the largest online encyclopedia that gives free access to the public. Using an instrumental variable approach that exploits the variations in one’s exposure to WikiProject, we find that joining a WikiProject has a significant impact on one’s level of contribution, with an average increase of 79 revisions or 8,672 character per month. To uncover the potential mechanism underlying the treatment effect, we use the size of home page for WikiProject as a proxy for the number of recommendations from a project. The results show that the users who join a WikiProject with more recommendations significantly increase their contribution to articles under the joined project, but not to articles under other projects.
Thanks for Stopping By: A Study of ‘Thanks’ Usage on Wikimedia
By Swati Goel
Abstract:
The Thanks feature on Wikipedia, also known as "Thanks," is a tool with which editors can quickly and easily send one other positive feedback. The aim of this project is to better understand this feature: its scope, the characteristics of a typical "Thanks" interaction, and the effects of receiving a thank on individual editors. We study the motivational impacts of "Thanks" because maintaining editor engagement is a central problem for crowdsourced repositories of knowledge such as Wikimedia. Our main findings are that most editors have not been exposed to the Thanks feature (meaning they have never given nor received a thank), thanks are typically sent upwards (from less experienced to more experienced editors), and receiving a thank is correlated with having high levels of editor engagement. Though the prevalence of "Thanks" usage varies by editor experience, the impact of receiving a thank seems mostly consistent for all users. We empirically demonstrate that receiving a thank has a strong positive effect on short-term editor activity across the board and provide preliminary evidence that thanks could compound to have long-term effects as well.
Thank you for organizing. Just a note for Europe based colleagues, that 11:30AM PDT is 18:30 UTC. This will be 20:30 Central European Summer Time or 19:30 Western European Summer Time (e.g., Portugal and UK).
Cheers, Scott
On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 8:49 AM Janna Layton jlayton@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello, everyone,
The next Research Showcase, “Group Membership and Contributions to Public Information Goods: The Case of WikiProject” and “Thanks for Stopping By: A Study of ‘Thanks’ Usage on Wikimedia,” will be live-streamed next Wednesday, April 17, 2019, at 11:30 AM PDT/19:30 UTC.
YouTube stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmb5LoJzOoE
As usual, you can join the conversation on IRC at #wikimedia-research. You can also watch our past research showcases here: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Showcase
This month's presentations:
Group Membership and Contributions to Public Information Goods: The Case of WikiProject
By Ark Fangzhou Zhang
Abstract:
We investigate the effects of group identity on contribution behavior on the English Wikipedia, the largest online encyclopedia that gives free access to the public. Using an instrumental variable approach that exploits the variations in one’s exposure to WikiProject, we find that joining a WikiProject has a significant impact on one’s level of contribution, with an average increase of 79 revisions or 8,672 character per month. To uncover the potential mechanism underlying the treatment effect, we use the size of home page for WikiProject as a proxy for the number of recommendations from a project. The results show that the users who join a WikiProject with more recommendations significantly increase their contribution to articles under the joined project, but not to articles under other projects.
Thanks for Stopping By: A Study of ‘Thanks’ Usage on Wikimedia
By Swati Goel
Abstract:
The Thanks feature on Wikipedia, also known as "Thanks," is a tool with which editors can quickly and easily send one other positive feedback. The aim of this project is to better understand this feature: its scope, the characteristics of a typical "Thanks" interaction, and the effects of receiving a thank on individual editors. We study the motivational impacts of "Thanks" because maintaining editor engagement is a central problem for crowdsourced repositories of knowledge such as Wikimedia. Our main findings are that most editors have not been exposed to the Thanks feature (meaning they have never given nor received a thank), thanks are typically sent upwards (from less experienced to more experienced editors), and receiving a thank is correlated with having high levels of editor engagement. Though the prevalence of "Thanks" usage varies by editor experience, the impact of receiving a thank seems mostly consistent for all users. We empirically demonstrate that receiving a thank has a strong positive effect on short-term editor activity across the board and provide preliminary evidence that thanks could compound to have long-term effects as well.
-- Janna Layton (she, her) Administrative Assistant - Audiences & Technology Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/ _______________________________________________ Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Dear Wikiresearchers,
You may be aware that a rising number of scientific publications are published under a CC-BY licence.
Roughly describing the politics of academic publishing, one can say that publishers hold on to a very profictable business by paywalling articles, academics tend to publish in the most prestigious (paywalled) journals for the sake of their career, but some institutions (like the NIH in the US or the Plan S in Europe) are beginning to require that the publicly funded research papers be accessible to all, surfing on the wave of a desirable "open" science.
One of the consequences of this situation is that, through what is called "gold" open access, authors are actually paying the publishers for their paper to be published in a (usually paywalled) journal under a CC (most of the time CC-BY) licence.
The merits and issues of gold open access is beyond the scope of my post, but, as an academic and a wikipedian, I can see potential here : The re-use into Wikipedia of scientific texts on a massive scale.
I am aware that some experiments have been started in the past.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Circular_permutation_in_proteins#Preparin... https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.10024...
The PloS journals actually tried to open bridges between their texts and Wikipedia articles and the "Circular permutation of proteins" example (and a few others) inspired me to actually transfer one of my papers that was published in a wholly CC-BY journal into a wikipedia article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_Chemistry_List https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-018-0322-7
My point is : as it can be imagined that the number of CC-BY scientific papers will likely sky-rocket in the next years, would not it be relevant to try to organise "CC-BY scientific papers" driven edit-a-thons (in academic libraries for example) to foster such practices (and also adress the issues of wikification / neutralisation / secondarification that it would imply) ? Or do such initiatives exist already ?
Alexandre Hocquet, 17/04/19 20:40:
My point is : as it can be imagined that the number of CC-BY scientific papers will likely sky-rocket in the next years, would not it be relevant to try to organise "CC-BY scientific papers" driven edit-a-thons
Importing text and images from freely licensed papers to Wikimedia wikis is a common practice. Several initiatives exist to further spread it. Wikimedia entities have stressed the importance of "libre open access" (free licenses) for over a decade now.
When we rewrote the terms of use in 2009, we made sure to make such imports easy: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use#7c
Many local explanations and tools also exist, like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copying_text_from_other_sources#Can_I_copy_from_open_license_or_public_domain_sources?
The biggest import happened on Wikimedia Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Open_Access_Media_Importer_Bot
Larger imports of text have been discussed several times, mostly for Wikisource: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:WikiProject_Open_Access/Programmatic_import_from_PubMed_Central/Draft_RfC
Federico
A wikisource toolchain for importing articles would be wonderful. There is no equivalent place for public comments, categorization, and dense internal linking across such texts.
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 2:36 PM Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
Alexandre Hocquet, 17/04/19 20:40:
My point is : as it can be imagined that the number of CC-BY scientific papers will likely sky-rocket in the next years, would not it be relevant to try to organise "CC-BY scientific papers" driven edit-a-thons
Importing text and images from freely licensed papers to Wikimedia wikis is a common practice. Several initiatives exist to further spread it. Wikimedia entities have stressed the importance of "libre open access" (free licenses) for over a decade now.
When we rewrote the terms of use in 2009, we made sure to make such imports easy: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use#7c
Many local explanations and tools also exist, like: < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copying_text_from_other_sources#Can_... ?>
The biggest import happened on Wikimedia Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Open_Access_Media_Importer_Bot
Larger imports of text have been discussed several times, mostly for Wikisource: < https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:WikiProject_Open_Access/Programmat...
Federico
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
On 17/04/2019 20:36, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
Alexandre Hocquet, 17/04/19 20:40:
My point is : as it can be imagined that the number of CC-BY scientific papers will likely sky-rocket in the next years, would not it be relevant to try to organise "CC-BY scientific papers" driven edit-a-thons
Importing text and images from freely licensed papers to Wikimedia wikis is a common practice. Several initiatives exist to further spread it. Wikimedia entities have stressed the importance of "libre open access" (free licenses) for over a decade now.
I do not doubt that the inclination and the infrastructure exist on the Wikimedia side. My point is that the number of compatible academic papers is on the verge of increasing exponentially in the next few years and that people involved in higher education should be aware of that potentiality, be they scholars or (crucially) librarians.
Wikipedia is a tertiary source, built from secondary sources. Journal articles which contain innovative research or new contributions are primary sources. Review articles are secondary sources.
The median contribution to wikipedia of most journal articles is going to be nil. Some will contribute diagrams and images, but only after validation in the form of review articles or republishing in widely used textbooks.
We already have enough academics wikilawyering references to their own articles in wikipedia.
cheers stuart
-- ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 07:02, Alexandre Hocquet alexandre.hocquet@univ-lorraine.fr wrote:
On 17/04/2019 20:36, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
Alexandre Hocquet, 17/04/19 20:40:
My point is : as it can be imagined that the number of CC-BY scientific papers will likely sky-rocket in the next years, would not it be relevant to try to organise "CC-BY scientific papers" driven edit-a-thons
Importing text and images from freely licensed papers to Wikimedia wikis is a common practice. Several initiatives exist to further spread it. Wikimedia entities have stressed the importance of "libre open access" (free licenses) for over a decade now.
I do not doubt that the inclination and the infrastructure exist on the Wikimedia side. My point is that the number of compatible academic papers is on the verge of increasing exponentially in the next few years and that people involved in higher education should be aware of that potentiality, be they scholars or (crucially) librarians.
--
Alexandre Hocquet Archives Henri Poincaré & Science History Institute Alexandre.Hocquet@univ-lorraine.fr https://www.sciencehistory.org/profile/alexandre-hocquet https://poincare.univ-lorraine.fr/fr/membre-titulaire/alexandre-hocquet
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 12:50 PM Stuart A. Yeates syeates@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia is a tertiary source, built from secondary sources. Journal articles which contain innovative research or new contributions are primary sources. Review articles are secondary sources.
I need some education here, please: What about Wikisource? Isn't the project targeted at primary sources? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikisource#What_is_Wikisource?
Thanks, Leila
On 17/04/2019 21:56, Leila Zia wrote:
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 12:50 PM Stuart A. Yeates <syeates@gmail.com mailto:syeates@gmail.com> wrote:
Wikipedia is a tertiary source, built from secondary sources. Journal articles which contain innovative research or new contributions are primary sources. Review articles are secondary sources.I need some education here, please: What about Wikisource? Isn't the project targeted at primary sources? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikisource#What_is_Wikisource?
Well, if you regard the idea as to massively and automatically import scientific literature into an encyclopaedia, I guess your points are valid.
But it is not what I'm advocating for, here. My point is that there is a lot of wikipedia-useful information within academic papers that could be re-used. Think about reviews : their purpose is actually to be a tertiary synthesis based on secondary sources. Think about the "Introduction" sections of papers : there are supposed to perform a survey of existing literature. Think about some papers in some academic fields in the Human sciences that are actually entirely built on previous litterature.
I'm not saying that it would be useful to uncritically import, I'm saying that we could benefit from some of this material, and that instead of rejecting it as mere self-promotion, or condemning the entire scientific literature as being "primary" (what? then a lot of wikipedia articles should be labelled as {{secondary sources needed}}) we should learn how to re-use it eficiently.
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 08:29, Alexandre Hocquet alexandre.hocquet@univ-lorraine.fr wrote:
what? then a lot of wikipedia articles should be labelled as {{secondary sources needed}})
Exactly. Sourcing as a whole across wikipedia already relies too heavily on primary sources. I regularly tag articles as such.
cheers stuart -- ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
On 17/04/2019 22:36, Stuart A. Yeates wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 08:29, Alexandre Hocquet wrote:
what? then a lot of wikipedia articles should be labelled as {{secondary sources needed}})
Exactly. Sourcing as a whole across wikipedia already relies too heavily on primary sources. I regularly tag articles as such.
Well, fair enough then. Good luck for your crusade, and thanks for your interesting views about what constitutes primary, secondary and tertiary. I guess I now have an answer about how much sympathy my suggestion would bring.
This looks like a job for Wikisource. If nothing else, so long as we can verify their CC licensing is compatible, we can archive and preserve them in perpetuity on WS. Unfortunately I've scarcely contributed to WS personally. I've reached out to a WS admin that I know from Commons. When they reply I'll cc them on this thread.
V/r TJW/GMG
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 4:47 PM Alexandre Hocquet < alexandre.hocquet@univ-lorraine.fr> wrote:
On 17/04/2019 22:36, Stuart A. Yeates wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 08:29, Alexandre Hocquet wrote:
what? then a lot of wikipedia articles should be labelled as {{secondary sources needed}})
Exactly. Sourcing as a whole across wikipedia already relies too heavily on primary sources. I regularly tag articles as such.
Well, fair enough then. Good luck for your crusade, and thanks for your interesting views about what constitutes primary, secondary and tertiary. I guess I now have an answer about how much sympathy my suggestion would bring.
--
Alexandre Hocquet Archives Henri Poincaré & Science History Institute Alexandre.Hocquet@univ-lorraine.fr https://www.sciencehistory.org/profile/alexandre-hocquet https://poincare.univ-lorraine.fr/fr/membre-titulaire/alexandre-hocquet
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Given that there are organisations already organised, funded and operating to preserve and promote open-access research, we might want to think about focusing on getting deep interoperability with them, rather than sucking all the content into Wikisource, where we can't provide half the functionality that they can.
cheers stuart -- ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 09:47, Timothy Wood timothyjosephwood@gmail.com wrote:
This looks like a job for Wikisource. If nothing else, so long as we can verify their CC licensing is compatible, we can archive and preserve them in perpetuity on WS. Unfortunately I've scarcely contributed to WS personally. I've reached out to a WS admin that I know from Commons. When they reply I'll cc them on this thread.
V/r TJW/GMG
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 4:47 PM Alexandre Hocquet < alexandre.hocquet@univ-lorraine.fr> wrote:
On 17/04/2019 22:36, Stuart A. Yeates wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 08:29, Alexandre Hocquet wrote:
what? then a lot of wikipedia articles should be labelled as {{secondary sources needed}})
Exactly. Sourcing as a whole across wikipedia already relies too heavily on primary sources. I regularly tag articles as such.
Well, fair enough then. Good luck for your crusade, and thanks for your interesting views about what constitutes primary, secondary and tertiary. I guess I now have an answer about how much sympathy my suggestion would bring.
--
Alexandre Hocquet Archives Henri Poincaré & Science History Institute Alexandre.Hocquet@univ-lorraine.fr https://www.sciencehistory.org/profile/alexandre-hocquet https://poincare.univ-lorraine.fr/fr/membre-titulaire/alexandre-hocquet
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
Well, we do have some things going for us that they might not, like a translation regime. But I wouldn't pretend to know half of the functionality that we can actually provide given that the papers are properly integrated into Wikidata.
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 6:25 PM Stuart A. Yeates syeates@gmail.com wrote:
Given that there are organisations already organised, funded and operating to preserve and promote open-access research, we might want to think about focusing on getting deep interoperability with them, rather than sucking all the content into Wikisource, where we can't provide half the functionality that they can.
cheers stuart -- ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 09:47, Timothy Wood timothyjosephwood@gmail.com wrote:
This looks like a job for Wikisource. If nothing else, so long as we can verify their CC licensing is compatible, we can archive and preserve them in perpetuity on WS. Unfortunately I've scarcely contributed to WS personally. I've reached out to a WS admin that I know from Commons. When they reply I'll cc them on this thread.
V/r TJW/GMG
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 4:47 PM Alexandre Hocquet < alexandre.hocquet@univ-lorraine.fr> wrote:
On 17/04/2019 22:36, Stuart A. Yeates wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 08:29, Alexandre Hocquet wrote:
what? then a lot of wikipedia articles should be labelled as {{secondary sources needed}})
Exactly. Sourcing as a whole across wikipedia already relies too heavily on primary sources. I regularly tag articles as such.
Well, fair enough then. Good luck for your crusade, and thanks for your interesting views about what constitutes primary, secondary and tertiary. I guess I now have an answer about how much sympathy my suggestion would bring.
--
Alexandre Hocquet Archives Henri Poincaré & Science History Institute Alexandre.Hocquet@univ-lorraine.fr https://www.sciencehistory.org/profile/alexandre-hocquet
https://poincare.univ-lorraine.fr/fr/membre-titulaire/alexandre-hocquet
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
This sounds right to me. I suspect this might be the first time I posted here, but Stuart's comment makes sense. There really are several entities, such as the activities of Paul Allen's institute's work in AI and scholarship; but, if Wikipedia is to tie in with these cc-by research documents, it seems to me that many of those documents are about topics already in Wikipedia; linking to them, updating the Wikipedia topic to reflect new information by way of deep interoperability and machine reading techniques makes sense.
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 3:25 PM Stuart A. Yeates syeates@gmail.com wrote:
Given that there are organisations already organised, funded and operating to preserve and promote open-access research, we might want to think about focusing on getting deep interoperability with them, rather than sucking all the content into Wikisource, where we can't provide half the functionality that they can.
cheers stuart -- ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 09:47, Timothy Wood timothyjosephwood@gmail.com wrote:
This looks like a job for Wikisource. If nothing else, so long as we can verify their CC licensing is compatible, we can archive and preserve them in perpetuity on WS. Unfortunately I've scarcely contributed to WS personally. I've reached out to a WS admin that I know from Commons. When they reply I'll cc them on this thread.
V/r TJW/GMG
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 4:47 PM Alexandre Hocquet < alexandre.hocquet@univ-lorraine.fr> wrote:
On 17/04/2019 22:36, Stuart A. Yeates wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 08:29, Alexandre Hocquet wrote:
what? then a lot of wikipedia articles should be labelled as {{secondary sources needed}})
Exactly. Sourcing as a whole across wikipedia already relies too heavily on primary sources. I regularly tag articles as such.
Well, fair enough then. Good luck for your crusade, and thanks for your interesting views about what constitutes primary, secondary and tertiary. I guess I now have an answer about how much sympathy my suggestion would bring.
--
Alexandre Hocquet Archives Henri Poincaré & Science History Institute Alexandre.Hocquet@univ-lorraine.fr https://www.sciencehistory.org/profile/alexandre-hocquet
https://poincare.univ-lorraine.fr/fr/membre-titulaire/alexandre-hocquet
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
Bumping to cc Yann on the thread as an experienced Wikisource user.
V/r TJW/GMG
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 8:29 PM Jack Park jackpark@gmail.com wrote:
This sounds right to me. I suspect this might be the first time I posted here, but Stuart's comment makes sense. There really are several entities, such as the activities of Paul Allen's institute's work in AI and scholarship; but, if Wikipedia is to tie in with these cc-by research documents, it seems to me that many of those documents are about topics already in Wikipedia; linking to them, updating the Wikipedia topic to reflect new information by way of deep interoperability and machine reading techniques makes sense.
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 3:25 PM Stuart A. Yeates syeates@gmail.com wrote:
Given that there are organisations already organised, funded and operating to preserve and promote open-access research, we might want to think about focusing on getting deep interoperability with them, rather than sucking all the content into Wikisource, where we can't provide half the functionality that they can.
cheers stuart -- ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 09:47, Timothy Wood timothyjosephwood@gmail.com wrote:
This looks like a job for Wikisource. If nothing else, so long as we
can
verify their CC licensing is compatible, we can archive and preserve
them
in perpetuity on WS. Unfortunately I've scarcely contributed to WS personally. I've reached out to a WS admin that I know from Commons.
When
they reply I'll cc them on this thread.
V/r TJW/GMG
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 4:47 PM Alexandre Hocquet < alexandre.hocquet@univ-lorraine.fr> wrote:
On 17/04/2019 22:36, Stuart A. Yeates wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 08:29, Alexandre Hocquet wrote:
what? then a lot of wikipedia articles should be labelled as {{secondary sources needed}})
Exactly. Sourcing as a whole across wikipedia already relies too heavily on primary sources. I regularly tag articles as such.
Well, fair enough then. Good luck for your crusade, and thanks for
your
interesting views about what constitutes primary, secondary and tertiary. I guess I now have an answer about how much sympathy my suggestion would bring.
--
Alexandre Hocquet Archives Henri Poincaré & Science History Institute Alexandre.Hocquet@univ-lorraine.fr https://www.sciencehistory.org/profile/alexandre-hocquet
https://poincare.univ-lorraine.fr/fr/membre-titulaire/alexandre-hocquet
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
Just a reminder that this Showcase will be happening on Wednesday.
On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 4:49 PM Janna Layton jlayton@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello, everyone,
The next Research Showcase, “Group Membership and Contributions to Public Information Goods: The Case of WikiProject” and “Thanks for Stopping By: A Study of ‘Thanks’ Usage on Wikimedia,” will be live-streamed next Wednesday, April 17, 2019, at 11:30 AM PDT/19:30 UTC.
YouTube stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmb5LoJzOoE
As usual, you can join the conversation on IRC at #wikimedia-research. You can also watch our past research showcases here: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Showcase
This month's presentations:
Group Membership and Contributions to Public Information Goods: The Case of WikiProject
By Ark Fangzhou Zhang
Abstract:
We investigate the effects of group identity on contribution behavior on the English Wikipedia, the largest online encyclopedia that gives free access to the public. Using an instrumental variable approach that exploits the variations in one’s exposure to WikiProject, we find that joining a WikiProject has a significant impact on one’s level of contribution, with an average increase of 79 revisions or 8,672 character per month. To uncover the potential mechanism underlying the treatment effect, we use the size of home page for WikiProject as a proxy for the number of recommendations from a project. The results show that the users who join a WikiProject with more recommendations significantly increase their contribution to articles under the joined project, but not to articles under other projects.
Thanks for Stopping By: A Study of ‘Thanks’ Usage on Wikimedia
By Swati Goel
Abstract:
The Thanks feature on Wikipedia, also known as "Thanks," is a tool with which editors can quickly and easily send one other positive feedback. The aim of this project is to better understand this feature: its scope, the characteristics of a typical "Thanks" interaction, and the effects of receiving a thank on individual editors. We study the motivational impacts of "Thanks" because maintaining editor engagement is a central problem for crowdsourced repositories of knowledge such as Wikimedia. Our main findings are that most editors have not been exposed to the Thanks feature (meaning they have never given nor received a thank), thanks are typically sent upwards (from less experienced to more experienced editors), and receiving a thank is correlated with having high levels of editor engagement. Though the prevalence of "Thanks" usage varies by editor experience, the impact of receiving a thank seems mostly consistent for all users. We empirically demonstrate that receiving a thank has a strong positive effect on short-term editor activity across the board and provide preliminary evidence that thanks could compound to have long-term effects as well.
-- Janna Layton (she, her) Administrative Assistant - Audiences & Technology Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/
The Research Showcase will be starting in about 30 minutes. Topics today are WikiProject and the "Thanks" feature. Info below:
On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 2:57 PM Janna Layton jlayton@wikimedia.org wrote:
Just a reminder that this Showcase will be happening on Wednesday.
On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 4:49 PM Janna Layton jlayton@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello, everyone,
The next Research Showcase, “Group Membership and Contributions to Public Information Goods: The Case of WikiProject” and “Thanks for Stopping By: A Study of ‘Thanks’ Usage on Wikimedia,” will be live-streamed next Wednesday, April 17, 2019, at 11:30 AM PDT/19:30 UTC.
YouTube stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmb5LoJzOoE
As usual, you can join the conversation on IRC at #wikimedia-research. You can also watch our past research showcases here: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Showcase
This month's presentations:
Group Membership and Contributions to Public Information Goods: The Case of WikiProject
By Ark Fangzhou Zhang
Abstract:
We investigate the effects of group identity on contribution behavior on the English Wikipedia, the largest online encyclopedia that gives free access to the public. Using an instrumental variable approach that exploits the variations in one’s exposure to WikiProject, we find that joining a WikiProject has a significant impact on one’s level of contribution, with an average increase of 79 revisions or 8,672 character per month. To uncover the potential mechanism underlying the treatment effect, we use the size of home page for WikiProject as a proxy for the number of recommendations from a project. The results show that the users who join a WikiProject with more recommendations significantly increase their contribution to articles under the joined project, but not to articles under other projects.
Thanks for Stopping By: A Study of ‘Thanks’ Usage on Wikimedia
By Swati Goel
Abstract:
The Thanks feature on Wikipedia, also known as "Thanks," is a tool with which editors can quickly and easily send one other positive feedback. The aim of this project is to better understand this feature: its scope, the characteristics of a typical "Thanks" interaction, and the effects of receiving a thank on individual editors. We study the motivational impacts of "Thanks" because maintaining editor engagement is a central problem for crowdsourced repositories of knowledge such as Wikimedia. Our main findings are that most editors have not been exposed to the Thanks feature (meaning they have never given nor received a thank), thanks are typically sent upwards (from less experienced to more experienced editors), and receiving a thank is correlated with having high levels of editor engagement. Though the prevalence of "Thanks" usage varies by editor experience, the impact of receiving a thank seems mostly consistent for all users. We empirically demonstrate that receiving a thank has a strong positive effect on short-term editor activity across the board and provide preliminary evidence that thanks could compound to have long-term effects as well.
-- Janna Layton (she, her) Administrative Assistant - Audiences & Technology Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/
-- Janna Layton (she, her) Administrative Assistant - Audiences & Technology Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/
wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org