A few people were passing around a paper that "could be potentially very useful for EE. tl;dr: just look at figure 8." -Giovanni Luca Ciampaglia
http://cs.stanford.edu/people/jure/pubs/language-www13.pdf
Steven Walling wrote:
Fascinating. Someone should _definitely_ run a similar study of how it takes editors to pick up markers of in-group Wikipedia jargon, if they haven't already. A lexicon would be fairly easy to develop.
Tilman Bayer added:
See also this paper: http://www.mpi-sws.org/~cristian/Echoes_of_power.html (reviewed here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2012/January#Admins_infl... )
Hope this is useful!
Sumana Harihareswara, 22/04/2013 21:02:
A few people were passing around a paper that "could be potentially very useful for EE. tl;dr: just look at figure 8." -Giovanni Luca Ciampaglia
http://cs.stanford.edu/people/jure/pubs/language-www13.pdf
Steven Walling wrote:
Fascinating. Someone should _definitely_ run a similar study of how it takes editors to pick up markers of in-group Wikipedia jargon, if they haven't already. A lexicon would be fairly easy to develop.
The point however is different: «A way to summarize this finding is to say that users generally die “linguistically old” (i.e., at a stage when they have relatively little reaction to linguistic change), no matter if they contribute relatively few posts to the community, or if they are heavy contributors». This means that, by checking if they're getting linguistically old, we could predict which users (old or new) are dangerously approaching their wikilifecycle end. What to do with this information would be another challenge, but it would be interesting to find some project where the local coaching group would be interested in having such lists/data to work on. Of course the Germans come to mind, but a smaller wiki may be more viable to start with.
Nemo
Tilman Bayer added:
See also this paper: http://www.mpi-sws.org/~cristian/Echoes_of_power.html (reviewed here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2012/January#Admins_infl... )
Hope this is useful!
Hello,
I have already discussed this work on the mailing list two months ago. You may now find the preprint on Wikipapers: http://wikipapers.referata.com/wiki/File:Wikipedia_E-Learning_Model_Preprint...
The typo might be somehow hazardous; this is my first scholar publication in English and I still need to adapt to some unfamiliar formal norms.
The original data will be disclosed in a shortwhile, probably on Meta- Wiki.
Pierre-Carl Langlais
–––––––––––––––––––––
Abstract :
This chapter gives a global appraisal of wiki-based pedagogic projects. The growing influence of Wikipedia on students’ research practices have actually made these a promising area for educational research. A compilation of data published by 30 previous academic case studies reveals several recurrent features. Wikis are not so easily adopted: most wiki learning programs begin by a slow initial phase, marked by a general unwillingness to adapt to an unusual environment. Some sociological factors, like age and, less clearly, gender may contribute to increase this initial reluctance. In spite of their uneasiness, wikis proved precious tools on one major aspect: they give a vivid representation of scientific communities. Students get acquainted with some valuable epistemic practices and norms, such as collaborative work and critical thought. While not improving significantly the memorization of information, wikis clearly enhance research abilities. This literature review can assist teachers in determining whether the use of wiki fits their pedagogic aims.
I've just started reading this, but a few thoughts right off:
"As every experiment it should be reproducible"
This is not possible because Wikipedia has a world-wide audience and is a top 10 website. No comparable can be expected to develop.
Also, compared to using Wikipedia in junior high or college sophomore research, active editing of technical or contested subjects is a far more profound educational experience.
Fred
Hello,
I have already discussed this work on the mailing list two months ago. You may now find the preprint on Wikipapers: http://wikipapers.referata.com/wiki/File:Wikipedia_E-Learning_Model_Preprint...
The typo might be somehow hazardous; this is my first scholar publication in English and I still need to adapt to some unfamiliar formal norms.
The original data will be disclosed in a shortwhile, probably on Meta- Wiki.
Pierre-Carl Langlais
Abstract :
This chapter gives a global appraisal of wiki-based pedagogic projects. The growing influence of Wikipedia on students research practices have actually made these a promising area for educational research. A compilation of data published by 30 previous academic case studies reveals several recurrent features. Wikis are not so easily adopted: most wiki learning programs begin by a slow initial phase, marked by a general unwillingness to adapt to an unusual environment. Some sociological factors, like age and, less clearly, gender may contribute to increase this initial reluctance. In spite of their uneasiness, wikis proved precious tools on one major aspect: they give a vivid representation of scientific communities. Students get acquainted with some valuable epistemic practices and norms, such as collaborative work and critical thought. While not improving significantly the memorization of information, wikis clearly enhance research abilities. This literature review can assist teachers in determining whether the use of wiki fits their pedagogic aims.
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Thanks for your feedback
I've just started reading this, but a few thoughts right off:
"As every experiment it should be reproducible"
This is not possible because Wikipedia has a world-wide audience and is a top 10 website. No comparable can be expected to develop.
My evaluation of wiki learning case studies tend in fact to infirm the size argument. Small wikis have managed to very similar features (both on the positive and negative sides).
Also, compared to using Wikipedia in junior high or college sophomore research, active editing of technical or contested subjects is a far more profound educational experience.
It is perhaps not clear enough but the study is only concerned with active participation.
Fred
Hello,
I have already discussed this work on the mailing list two months ago. You may now find the preprint on Wikipapers: http://wikipapers.referata.com/wiki/File:Wikipedia_E-Learning_Model_Preprint...
The typo might be somehow hazardous; this is my first scholar publication in English and I still need to adapt to some unfamiliar formal norms.
The original data will be disclosed in a shortwhile, probably on Meta- Wiki.
Pierre-Carl Langlais
Abstract :
This chapter gives a global appraisal of wiki-based pedagogic projects. The growing influence of Wikipedia on students research practices have actually made these a promising area for educational research. A compilation of data published by 30 previous academic case studies reveals several recurrent features. Wikis are not so easily adopted: most wiki learning programs begin by a slow initial phase, marked by a general unwillingness to adapt to an unusual environment. Some sociological factors, like age and, less clearly, gender may contribute to increase this initial reluctance. In spite of their uneasiness, wikis proved precious tools on one major aspect: they give a vivid representation of scientific communities. Students get acquainted with some valuable epistemic practices and norms, such as collaborative work and critical thought. While not improving significantly the memorization of information, wikis clearly enhance research abilities. This literature review can assist teachers in determining whether the use of wiki fits their pedagogic aims.
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
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I've just started reading this, but a few thoughts right off:
"As every experiment it should be reproducible"
This is not possible because Wikipedia has a world-wide audience and is a top 10 website. No comparable can be expected to develop.
Are you familiar with Mako's talk "Almost Wikipedia"? http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/events/luncheon/2011/10/makohill
"Truth is a relative virtue, that mostly depends on the effectivity of social procedures and norms." Wikipedia makes no such claim; only that it is a summary of generally accepted knowledge.
Fred
Hello,
I have already discussed this work on the mailing list two months ago. You may now find the preprint on Wikipapers: http://wikipapers.referata.com/wiki/File:Wikipedia_E-Learning_Model_Preprint...
The typo might be somehow hazardous; this is my first scholar publication in English and I still need to adapt to some unfamiliar formal norms.
The original data will be disclosed in a shortwhile, probably on Meta- Wiki.
Pierre-Carl Langlais
Abstract :
This chapter gives a global appraisal of wiki-based pedagogic projects. The growing influence of Wikipedia on students research practices have actually made these a promising area for educational research. A compilation of data published by 30 previous academic case studies reveals several recurrent features. Wikis are not so easily adopted: most wiki learning programs begin by a slow initial phase, marked by a general unwillingness to adapt to an unusual environment. Some sociological factors, like age and, less clearly, gender may contribute to increase this initial reluctance. In spite of their uneasiness, wikis proved precious tools on one major aspect: they give a vivid representation of scientific communities. Students get acquainted with some valuable epistemic practices and norms, such as collaborative work and critical thought. While not improving significantly the memorization of information, wikis clearly enhance research abilities. This literature review can assist teachers in determining whether the use of wiki fits their pedagogic aims.
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
"meaning is not the product of a one-sided teaching, but of a dialogical exchange between two seemingly equal human consciousness" Again, we do not aspire to "meaning" nor to "dialog" only to consensus regarding the corpus of generally-accepted information. Even calling it knowledge is a stretch. It is what it is: what authorities in a field agree on.
Fred
Hello,
I have already discussed this work on the mailing list two months ago. You may now find the preprint on Wikipapers: http://wikipapers.referata.com/wiki/File:Wikipedia_E-Learning_Model_Preprint...
The typo might be somehow hazardous; this is my first scholar publication in English and I still need to adapt to some unfamiliar formal norms.
The original data will be disclosed in a shortwhile, probably on Meta- Wiki.
Pierre-Carl Langlais
Abstract :
This chapter gives a global appraisal of wiki-based pedagogic projects. The growing influence of Wikipedia on students research practices have actually made these a promising area for educational research. A compilation of data published by 30 previous academic case studies reveals several recurrent features. Wikis are not so easily adopted: most wiki learning programs begin by a slow initial phase, marked by a general unwillingness to adapt to an unusual environment. Some sociological factors, like age and, less clearly, gender may contribute to increase this initial reluctance. In spite of their uneasiness, wikis proved precious tools on one major aspect: they give a vivid representation of scientific communities. Students get acquainted with some valuable epistemic practices and norms, such as collaborative work and critical thought. While not improving significantly the memorization of information, wikis clearly enhance research abilities. This literature review can assist teachers in determining whether the use of wiki fits their pedagogic aims.
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
"No more than 10% really played the game: they actually produced half of the wiki content." An example of the relentless elitism the software encourages.
Fred
Hello,
I have already discussed this work on the mailing list two months ago. You may now find the preprint on Wikipapers: http://wikipapers.referata.com/wiki/File:Wikipedia_E-Learning_Model_Preprint...
The typo might be somehow hazardous; this is my first scholar publication in English and I still need to adapt to some unfamiliar formal norms.
The original data will be disclosed in a shortwhile, probably on Meta- Wiki.
Pierre-Carl Langlais
Abstract :
This chapter gives a global appraisal of wiki-based pedagogic projects. The growing influence of Wikipedia on students research practices have actually made these a promising area for educational research. A compilation of data published by 30 previous academic case studies reveals several recurrent features. Wikis are not so easily adopted: most wiki learning programs begin by a slow initial phase, marked by a general unwillingness to adapt to an unusual environment. Some sociological factors, like age and, less clearly, gender may contribute to increase this initial reluctance. In spite of their uneasiness, wikis proved precious tools on one major aspect: they give a vivid representation of scientific communities. Students get acquainted with some valuable epistemic practices and norms, such as collaborative work and critical thought. While not improving significantly the memorization of information, wikis clearly enhance research abilities. This literature review can assist teachers in determining whether the use of wiki fits their pedagogic aims.
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
It was interesting to notice that Wikipedias ideas and principles did not work (...) Almost none of the students edited the articles during a period of three month.
True of Wikipedia viewed on a global basis, less than .1% edit.
Fred
Hello,
I have already discussed this work on the mailing list two months ago. You may now find the preprint on Wikipapers: http://wikipapers.referata.com/wiki/File:Wikipedia_E-Learning_Model_Preprint...
The typo might be somehow hazardous; this is my first scholar publication in English and I still need to adapt to some unfamiliar formal norms.
The original data will be disclosed in a shortwhile, probably on Meta- Wiki.
Pierre-Carl Langlais
Abstract :
This chapter gives a global appraisal of wiki-based pedagogic projects. The growing influence of Wikipedia on students research practices have actually made these a promising area for educational research. A compilation of data published by 30 previous academic case studies reveals several recurrent features. Wikis are not so easily adopted: most wiki learning programs begin by a slow initial phase, marked by a general unwillingness to adapt to an unusual environment. Some sociological factors, like age and, less clearly, gender may contribute to increase this initial reluctance. In spite of their uneasiness, wikis proved precious tools on one major aspect: they give a vivid representation of scientific communities. Students get acquainted with some valuable epistemic practices and norms, such as collaborative work and critical thought. While not improving significantly the memorization of information, wikis clearly enhance research abilities. This literature review can assist teachers in determining whether the use of wiki fits their pedagogic aims.
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Hello Pierre-Carl Langlais,
I believe that [Wiki-research-l] can use more research like yours that attempts to generalize the findings from the previous literature.
Have you considered using "meta-analyses" of case studies so as to provide a bit more methodological grounding? I am not a methodologist myself. Still I think your main work is to provide more than just a literature review of 30 case studies. It might work better to convince the readers how you have done more than a literature review.
Also, I am not sure whether you use the two terms "Wiki" and "Wikipedia" as synonym. If your work focus on analyzing the previous literature on 30 case studies on Wikipedia, a special instance of global wiki project, perhaps it is better to use simply the term "Wikipedia". I do not know what to on the subjects as a reader. Some clarification will help. Otherwise I keep thinking if it is about using Wikipedia or about using Wiki the technology.
You might feel a bit of heat over your use of "scientific community" analogy or comparison. All I can say is that it will be very controversial. Not to mention the "no original policy"! One way out might be a historical context. Enyclopedias in enlightenment era are positioned somewhere between scientific journals and the general public. Here the modern citation systems that distinguishes primary- secondary- and tertiary sources may be of use here. I will tend to search for some literature form (Library and) Information Science, or even enlightenment history to make a case of "popular or general scientific community" instead of your phrase of pseudo-scientific community.
Do not worry so much about the critical reviews or comments. Sometimes negative reviews are better than silence.
Best, han-teng liao dphil candidate oxford internet institute
Thanks for these thoughtful comments. That's the kind of feedback I was expecting.
I agree that a recall of preceding meta-analyses could prove useful. In fact, this research was initially planned in a more customary way. Then I discovered that there have been no general appraisal of the existent literature since 2007 and that going in that direction might be more interesting. My thereotical framework was more the result of a personal evolution than of a predefinite choice.
If I've got time enough, I will enhance a bit my version hosted on Wikipapers. I'm wondering how we would call it in this case: too advanced for preprint and too soon for a postprint; an interprint?
Anyway by the next few months, I'm going to dive more deeply into the epistemic debates on Wikipedia. The main French Institute for Communication (ISCC) sets up a seminar on Wikipedia and Science (Wikipédia et la science) by the beginning of June. My conference will bear on the advent of the "quotation needed" norm on the French Wikipedia.
Greetings,
Pierre-Carl Langlais
Le 27 avr. 2013 à 18:21, Han-Teng Liao hanteng@gmail.com a écrit :
Hello Pierre-Carl Langlais,
I believe that [Wiki-research-l] can use more research like yours that attempts to generalize the findings from the previous literature.
Have you considered using "meta-analyses" of case studies so as to provide a bit more methodological grounding? I am not a methodologist myself. Still I think your main work is to provide more than just a literature review of 30 case studies. It might work better to convince the readers how you have done more than a literature review.
Also, I am not sure whether you use the two terms "Wiki" and "Wikipedia" as synonym. If your work focus on analyzing the previous literature on 30 case studies on Wikipedia, a special instance of global wiki project, perhaps it is better to use simply the term "Wikipedia". I do not know what to on the subjects as a reader. Some clarification will help. Otherwise I keep thinking if it is about using Wikipedia or about using Wiki the technology.
You might feel a bit of heat over your use of "scientific community" analogy or comparison. All I can say is that it will be very controversial. Not to mention the "no original policy"! One way out might be a historical context. Enyclopedias in enlightenment era are positioned somewhere between scientific journals and the general public. Here the modern citation systems that distinguishes primary- secondary- and tertiary sources may be of use here. I will tend to search for some literature form (Library and) Information Science, or even enlightenment history to make a case of "popular or general scientific community" instead of your phrase of pseudo-scientific community.
Do not worry so much about the critical reviews or comments. Sometimes negative reviews are better than silence.
Best, han-teng liao dphil candidate oxford internet institute
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Is Wikipedia a relevant model for e-learning?
This title invites skepticism b/c, a priori, Wikipedia is a website, not a "model". Paragogy, which you mention -- thanks! -- might be closer: it at least contains the seeds of a model of learning. Theoretical precision is still work in progress - I'd be happy to talk more with you about the current state of the art here, if you'd like.
Incidentally, my thesis focuses on a mathematical case study, but the theory of paragogy is _not_ limited to mathematics. Charlie Danoff and I wanted to describe how learning works at P2PU -- in particular, we were thinking about "synergizing individual and organizational learning" (http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Arided/ParagogyPaper); in other words, how does P2PU "learn" as an organization? Our opinion was that there were many lost opportunities (http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-739/paper_5.pdf), precisely because there wasn't an effective model in place.
In this connection: I think is important to reconcile the horizontalism of peer learning with the "relentless elitism" that Fred Bauder indicated in his comment on your preprint. Organizations tend to be built around some set of "protected" resources. For example, anyone can edit Wikipedia, but changes are subject to peer review; changes to the _software_ are subject to even stricter peer review.
This tension is where you would expect to see a "model of learning" arise. The accretion of comments and changes provide an analogy to sense perception (c.f. G. Deleuze, "Empiricism and subjectivity: an essay on Hume's theory of human nature" / "Empirisme et subjectivité. Essai sur la nature humaine selon Hume"), peer review is vaguely similar to a neural network; and if we talk about "Wikipedia as a model" we would think of it as a collectively-created and curated picture of the world. To be clear: you don't get a model without a selection function, an inside and an outside.
Epistemic value. Encouraging scientific skills and methodologies appears as the main asset of the “wiki way”. Yet, the epistemic value of a specific device is uneasy to circumscribe. This study has not gone beyond a mere recollection of effects, that is the registered facts that students were crossing several sources and developing critical attitude toward published knowledge. Albeit limited to mathematics, the ongoing doctoral thesis of Joe Cornelli delivers some valuable insights on peer learning. Following the Wikipedia model, he defines this particular way of apprehending knowledge as paragogy, that is parallel (para-) leading (-gogy).
In addition to the suggested changes above, one other minor change... it's CORNELI (one L) -- thanks! :-)
Joe
Dear Pierre-Carl
I've seen you reference my paper on AssessMediaWiki. Perhaps this other reference could be of your interest: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/225107564_Assessment_of_collaborativ...
It basically introduces a previous quantitative approach that is fully-operative. AssessMediaWiki tries to complement it.
Best regards,
2013/4/27 Pierre-Carl Langlais langlais.qobuz@gmail.com
Hello,
I have already discussed this work on the mailing list two months ago. You may now find the preprint on Wikipapers: http://wikipapers.referata.com/wiki/File:Wikipedia_E-Learning_Model_Preprint...
The typo might be somehow hazardous; this is my first scholar publication in English and I still need to adapt to some unfamiliar formal norms.
The original data will be disclosed in a shortwhile, probably on Meta-Wiki.
Pierre-Carl Langlais
–––––––––––––––––––––
Abstract :
This chapter gives a global appraisal of wiki-based pedagogic projects. The growing influence of Wikipedia on students’ research practices have actually made these a promising area for educational research. A compilation of data published by 30 previous academic case studies reveals several recurrent features. Wikis are not so easily adopted: most wiki learning programs begin by a slow initial phase, marked by a general unwillingness to adapt to an unusual environment. Some sociological factors, like age and, less clearly, gender may contribute to increase this initial reluctance. In spite of their uneasiness, wikis proved precious tools on one major aspect: they give a vivid representation of scientific communities. Students get acquainted with some valuable epistemic practices and norms, such as collaborative work and critical thought. While not improving significantly the memorization of information, wikis clearly enhance research abilities. This literature review can assist teachers in determining whether the use of wiki fits their pedagogic aims.
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