Hello researchers,
A lot of research on Wikipedia is published in English and also uses the English Wikipedia as source of data or researchers get their participants via English Wikipedia [0].
A frequent criticism I meet when discussing such research with non-en.wp community members is that their Wikipedia is different and the results of en.wp base research are problematic/incomparable/totally useless.
So I want to ask: - Do you know of research comparing different Wikis, preferably across language versions? [1] - How would you deal with such criticism, particularly of the "if it is not about 'my' wp it is useless"-kind [2]?
Kind Regards, Jan
____ [0] Plausible due to academi fields, particularly Computer Science, publishing mainly in english, size and WMF as actor being US-based. [1] I know of »revisiting "The Rise and Decline" in a Population of Peer Production Projects« (https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3173929), comparing different Wikia-Wikis; Research like "limits of self-organization" (https://firstmonday.org/article/view/1405/1323) that refer to general principles of peer production. Comparisons of Wikipedias across languages and the impact of their different contexts, languages and regulations would be very interesting to me. [2] I'm aware that making heterogeneous things comparable is seen as a core academic/scientific activity in STS research (Law, SL Star, Turnbull…) so I do not want to say, transfer to a different setting is not a problem – but it is certainly not "totally useless" either.
Hoi, Just consider, when a language is taught in secondary school and a Wikipedia has < 2500 articles.. What is the purpose of all education related research particularly when in university the language is not taught? Now consider that our research is about professor types teaching on universities ... interesting sure applicable hardly. In the same vein, with < 2500 articles we DO want secondary school information included. When you consider languages like Malayalam, the importance of Wikisource compared to English is utterly different. English has Open Library and while it is wonderful, its user interface is English only..
When you consider the use of Commons and Wikidata, they are not at all usable in most other languages AND we do not have a strategy how to make them usable in other languages. Realise that the technical ability to make things multi lingual does not make them usable in multiple languages.. It is why I have my Africa project and hope to find people interesting in the approach. [1]
The problem with science is not in the science itself. The problem is that any marketing notion are absent. You study how it works and it does not translate in ways and means that make a difference. Even the notion of teaching Wikidata by teaching them to query is in and of itself problematic [2]. It is problematic because there are no labels in other languages and there are no strategies to populate the labels in other languages not even for sub sets.
Thanks, GerardM
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GerardM/Africa [2] https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2019/10/what-data-is-wrangled-is-obviou...
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 13:36, Jan Dittrich jan.dittrich@wikimedia.de wrote:
Hello researchers,
A lot of research on Wikipedia is published in English and also uses the English Wikipedia as source of data or researchers get their participants via English Wikipedia [0].
A frequent criticism I meet when discussing such research with non-en.wp community members is that their Wikipedia is different and the results of en.wp base research are problematic/incomparable/totally useless.
So I want to ask:
- Do you know of research comparing different Wikis, preferably across
language versions? [1]
- How would you deal with such criticism, particularly of the "if it is not
about 'my' wp it is useless"-kind [2]?
Kind Regards, Jan
[0] Plausible due to academi fields, particularly Computer Science, publishing mainly in english, size and WMF as actor being US-based. [1] I know of »revisiting "The Rise and Decline" in a Population of Peer Production Projects« (https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3173929), comparing different Wikia-Wikis; Research like "limits of self-organization" (https://firstmonday.org/article/view/1405/1323) that refer to general principles of peer production. Comparisons of Wikipedias across languages and the impact of their different contexts, languages and regulations would be very interesting to me. [2] I'm aware that making heterogeneous things comparable is seen as a core academic/scientific activity in STS research (Law, SL Star, Turnbull…) so I do not want to say, transfer to a different setting is not a problem – but it is certainly not "totally useless" either.
-- Jan Dittrich UX Design/ Research
Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 https://wikimedia.de
Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der Menschheit teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei! https://spenden.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207. _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Jan Dittrich, 02/10/19 14:35:
- How would you deal with such criticism, particularly of the "if it is not
about 'my' wp it is useless"-kind [2]?
At a minimum, the research needs to have used methods which could extend to multiple wikis. Being about 2 languages is ten times better than being about 1 only, while being about 100 language subdomains is not a hundred times more informative. Involving multiple languages helps go beyond the language-specific and wiki-specific constructs (like templates, workflows etc.).
Federico
Jan, You bring up a good point. I feel like there has been a gradual shift towards research across multiple language communities over the past few years and that is starting to lead to some informal insights into this question of transfer of findings across languages / cultures. First a few examples in case you wish to explore yourself: * Motivation / needs of Wikipedia readers across 13 different languages: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reader_Beh... * Motivation / behavior of new editors across Czech and Korean Wikipedias (with some ongoing work in Vietnamese and Arabic Wikipedia as well I believe): https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Growth/Analytics_updates/EditorJourney_initia... * Reading time across many wikis: https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=3306446.3340829 * Predicting aggregate page view in languages/regions where the takeaway was that language was more important than geographic region when it comes to predicting page views: http://wikiworkshop.org/2019/papers/Wiki_Workshop_2019_paper_3.pdf * Enabling page previews in English / German: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Page_Previews/2017-18_A/B_Tests * Usage of the "Thanks" feature across a number of languages: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Understanding_thanks * Effect on tourism of additional content about places in Dutch, German, French, and Italian: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3046400 * Some data on the usage of blocks on various wikis: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_health_initiative/Measuring_the_ef... * A bunch of data on the prevalence of anonymous editing on different languages / projects: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IP_Editing:_Privacy_Enhancement_and_Abuse_Mi... * Scott Hale has also done some work on multilingual editing that might be worth exploring: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.00657v2.pdf and https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.0976 * Statistics on content overlap across wikis: https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikidata_Concepts_Monitor#Wikidata_usage... or https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Expanding_Wikipedia_articles_across...
In general, my personal views are: * Language (presumably partially as a proxy for culture) is by far the most salient aspect when it comes to understanding differences in behavior etc. across wikis * I hesitate to make broad statements about cultural differences, but there are certain wikis that are more / less interconnected. For instance, there is a good bit of overlap between Hindi Wikipedia and various other language editions associated with India (Gujarati, Marathi, etc.). Same is true for various languages in Spain (Asturian, Basque, Catalan, Spanish, etc.) and Ukrainian / Russian Wikipedias. * Obviously size matters a lot too in certain cases when it comes to editing / maintenance workflows, though I would argue it's less of a factor when it comes to reader behavior. * Some wikis do have a reputation of being quite distinct -- for instance, I would be hesitant to generalize anything to/from Japanese Wikipedia because the statistics regarding interactions etc. there often look much different than other wikis.
I would love to see some meta analyses that begin to look at similarities in behavior or settings (e.g., AbuseFilters, rules around ContentTranslation) across lots of different metrics to guide our understanding of the similarities and differences between the language communities. Until then, I would say there are going to be instances when research on one wiki tells you little about how another wiki would react (+1 to what Nemo says about even two is much much better than one language, especially if they are much different languages/cultures). But there are also often statistics you might pull up to make inferences around how findings might transfer -- e.g., statistics on anonymous editing and reverts might tell you something about how introducing new types of IP blocks would play out in a new community.
On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 10:46 AM Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
Jan Dittrich, 02/10/19 14:35:
- How would you deal with such criticism, particularly of the "if it is
not
about 'my' wp it is useless"-kind [2]?
At a minimum, the research needs to have used methods which could extend to multiple wikis. Being about 2 languages is ten times better than being about 1 only, while being about 100 language subdomains is not a hundred times more informative. Involving multiple languages helps go beyond the language-specific and wiki-specific constructs (like templates, workflows etc.).
Federico
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Thanks a lot for bringing this up.
Sorry for not offering a solution, but I do want to mention a frequently-missed aspect of the problem: Wikis in different languages have some differences that are understandable because they reflect some objective cultural characteristics of the people who speak it. But some differences are artificial and exit because in the early days of Wikimedia (mid-2000s) there were no convenient ways for wikis to communicate and share info. There were no global accounts and no convenient translation tools.
Templates are still not global, even though there is huge demand for it,[1] and a lot of community process are implemented using templates: requests for deletion, requests for unblocking, article sorting for WikiProjects, stub sorting. Many of these things could be unified, at least partially, by making templates global, and among many benefits, it would make research easier, too.
[1] It came at #3 in the Community Wishlist vote in 2015, and at #1 in 2016. Despite this demand, it was not implemented :(
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
בתאריך יום ד׳, 2 באוק׳ 2019 ב-14:37 מאת Jan Dittrich < jan.dittrich@wikimedia.de>:
Hello researchers,
A lot of research on Wikipedia is published in English and also uses the English Wikipedia as source of data or researchers get their participants via English Wikipedia [0].
A frequent criticism I meet when discussing such research with non-en.wp community members is that their Wikipedia is different and the results of en.wp base research are problematic/incomparable/totally useless.
So I want to ask:
- Do you know of research comparing different Wikis, preferably across
language versions? [1]
- How would you deal with such criticism, particularly of the "if it is not
about 'my' wp it is useless"-kind [2]?
Kind Regards, Jan
[0] Plausible due to academi fields, particularly Computer Science, publishing mainly in english, size and WMF as actor being US-based. [1] I know of »revisiting "The Rise and Decline" in a Population of Peer Production Projects« (https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3173929), comparing different Wikia-Wikis; Research like "limits of self-organization" (https://firstmonday.org/article/view/1405/1323) that refer to general principles of peer production. Comparisons of Wikipedias across languages and the impact of their different contexts, languages and regulations would be very interesting to me. [2] I'm aware that making heterogeneous things comparable is seen as a core academic/scientific activity in STS research (Law, SL Star, Turnbull…) so I do not want to say, transfer to a different setting is not a problem – but it is certainly not "totally useless" either.
-- Jan Dittrich UX Design/ Research
Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 https://wikimedia.de
Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der Menschheit teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei! https://spenden.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207. _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Just adding a small point I saw while interviewing editors of different language Wikipedias: I believe (and haven't further investigated, so take this with a grain of salt) that there is also a general difference in the behavior of "small" and "large" communities, e.g., in trust between the editors and how they work together. This seemed to be independent of other cultural context, but this is rather anecdotal and would be interesting to see further investigated. I find it generally a very interesting topic and look forward to what results from the discussion here, so far I see research only applying their methods across Wikipedias rather than drawing conclusion from one language version to another. Thanks Isaac also for the collection of reading material :)
On Thu, Oct 3, 2019, 16:23 Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
Thanks a lot for bringing this up.
Sorry for not offering a solution, but I do want to mention a frequently-missed aspect of the problem: Wikis in different languages have some differences that are understandable because they reflect some objective cultural characteristics of the people who speak it. But some differences are artificial and exit because in the early days of Wikimedia (mid-2000s) there were no convenient ways for wikis to communicate and share info. There were no global accounts and no convenient translation tools.
Templates are still not global, even though there is huge demand for it,[1] and a lot of community process are implemented using templates: requests for deletion, requests for unblocking, article sorting for WikiProjects, stub sorting. Many of these things could be unified, at least partially, by making templates global, and among many benefits, it would make research easier, too.
[1] It came at #3 in the Community Wishlist vote in 2015, and at #1 in 2016. Despite this demand, it was not implemented :(
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
בתאריך יום ד׳, 2 באוק׳ 2019 ב-14:37 מאת Jan Dittrich < jan.dittrich@wikimedia.de>:
Hello researchers,
A lot of research on Wikipedia is published in English and also uses the English Wikipedia as source of data or researchers get their participants via English Wikipedia [0].
A frequent criticism I meet when discussing such research with non-en.wp community members is that their Wikipedia is different and the results of en.wp base research are problematic/incomparable/totally useless.
So I want to ask:
- Do you know of research comparing different Wikis, preferably across
language versions? [1]
- How would you deal with such criticism, particularly of the "if it is
not
about 'my' wp it is useless"-kind [2]?
Kind Regards, Jan
[0] Plausible due to academi fields, particularly Computer Science, publishing mainly in english, size and WMF as actor being US-based. [1] I know of »revisiting "The Rise and Decline" in a Population of Peer Production Projects« (https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3173929), comparing different Wikia-Wikis; Research like "limits of self-organization" (https://firstmonday.org/article/view/1405/1323) that refer to general principles of peer production. Comparisons of Wikipedias across languages and the impact of their different contexts, languages
and
regulations would be very interesting to me. [2] I'm aware that making heterogeneous things comparable is seen as a
core
academic/scientific activity in STS research (Law, SL Star, Turnbull…)
so I
do not want to say, transfer to a different setting is not a problem –
but
it is certainly not "totally useless" either.
-- Jan Dittrich UX Design/ Research
Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 https://wikimedia.de
Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der
Menschheit
teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei! https://spenden.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207. _______________________________________________ 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
Hello, indeed a very interesting topic, and one should really treat small and big Wikipedias as very different kinds of websites. Just alone that on big Wikipedias, you have and use a watchlist, while on a small Wikipedia, you basically use the Recent changes. A systematic comparison would be great. My paper ten years ago was more a survey on the topic by itself: Ziko van Dijk: Wikipedia and lesser-resourced languages. In: *Language Problems and Language Planning* 33 (2009, Nr. 3, Herbst), S. 234-255. Actually in the book I am working on right now, such a systematic comparison would be a very useful example for how to apply my wiki model... :-) Kind regards Ziko
Am Do., 3. Okt. 2019 um 21:13 Uhr schrieb Lucie Kaffee < lucie.kaffee@gmail.com>:
Just adding a small point I saw while interviewing editors of different language Wikipedias: I believe (and haven't further investigated, so take this with a grain of salt) that there is also a general difference in the behavior of "small" and "large" communities, e.g., in trust between the editors and how they work together. This seemed to be independent of other cultural context, but this is rather anecdotal and would be interesting to see further investigated. I find it generally a very interesting topic and look forward to what results from the discussion here, so far I see research only applying their methods across Wikipedias rather than drawing conclusion from one language version to another. Thanks Isaac also for the collection of reading material :)
On Thu, Oct 3, 2019, 16:23 Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
Thanks a lot for bringing this up.
Sorry for not offering a solution, but I do want to mention a frequently-missed aspect of the problem: Wikis in different languages
have
some differences that are understandable because they reflect some objective cultural characteristics of the people who speak it. But some differences are artificial and exit because in the early days of
Wikimedia
(mid-2000s) there were no convenient ways for wikis to communicate and share info. There were no global accounts and no convenient translation tools.
Templates are still not global, even though there is huge demand for
it,[1]
and a lot of community process are implemented using templates: requests for deletion, requests for unblocking, article sorting for WikiProjects, stub sorting. Many of these things could be unified, at least partially,
by
making templates global, and among many benefits, it would make research easier, too.
[1] It came at #3 in the Community Wishlist vote in 2015, and at #1 in 2016. Despite this demand, it was not implemented :(
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
בתאריך יום ד׳, 2 באוק׳ 2019 ב-14:37 מאת Jan Dittrich < jan.dittrich@wikimedia.de>:
Hello researchers,
A lot of research on Wikipedia is published in English and also uses
the
English Wikipedia as source of data or researchers get their
participants
via English Wikipedia [0].
A frequent criticism I meet when discussing such research with
non-en.wp
community members is that their Wikipedia is different and the results
of
en.wp base research are problematic/incomparable/totally useless.
So I want to ask:
- Do you know of research comparing different Wikis, preferably across
language versions? [1]
- How would you deal with such criticism, particularly of the "if it is
not
about 'my' wp it is useless"-kind [2]?
Kind Regards, Jan
[0] Plausible due to academi fields, particularly Computer Science, publishing mainly in english, size and WMF as actor being US-based. [1] I know of »revisiting "The Rise and Decline" in a Population of
Peer
Production Projects« (https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3173929), comparing different Wikia-Wikis; Research like "limits of self-organization" (https://firstmonday.org/article/view/1405/1323)
that
refer to general principles of peer production. Comparisons of
Wikipedias
across languages and the impact of their different contexts, languages
and
regulations would be very interesting to me. [2] I'm aware that making heterogeneous things comparable is seen as a
core
academic/scientific activity in STS research (Law, SL Star, Turnbull…)
so I
do not want to say, transfer to a different setting is not a problem –
but
it is certainly not "totally useless" either.
-- Jan Dittrich UX Design/ Research
Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 https://wikimedia.de
Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der
Menschheit
teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei! https://spenden.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207. _______________________________________________ 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
Perhaps off-topic here, but when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail ...
In the case of Wikipedia, we use templates and tracking categories as a poor man's solution to having any actual support for workflows and dashboards to manage processes. While phabricator is not great, it's still a step in the right direction.
When I run large projects like our heritage register article rollout, I use spreadsheets held on Google Drive as it is easier to collaborate that way than on-wiki for a couple of really simple reasons:
Wikipedia tables can't be manipulated like spreadsheets (e.g. queries like "which heritage entries are currently without an infobox photo and in the City of Sydney"). You can't store article drafts on Wikipedia in any name space because of the categories in them.
Oh and we use email to collaborate on these projects because Talk is useless and frankly you don't need the peanut gallery looking on and wasting everyone's time. There are plenty of people who love to demand how others should implement a project despite having no intention to actually contribute to the work of the project. I think we should have some sort of rule on Wikipedia that you can't write more bytes on Talk pages than you've written in article content :-)
So I think the small Wikipedias should be careful what they wish for when it comes to templates ... I got told off the other day for not having used the right presentation for an edit war report (I was a bystander not involved in a set of edit wars occurring across a large group of article). My reaction was "fine, I won't bother to report one again". Therein lie the dangers of using templates for business processes.
Kerry
-----Original Message----- From: Wiki-research-l [mailto:wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Amir E. Aharoni Sent: Friday, 4 October 2019 12:23 AM To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Generalizability of research across different language versions
Thanks a lot for bringing this up.
Sorry for not offering a solution, but I do want to mention a frequently-missed aspect of the problem: Wikis in different languages have some differences that are understandable because they reflect some objective cultural characteristics of the people who speak it. But some differences are artificial and exit because in the early days of Wikimedia (mid-2000s) there were no convenient ways for wikis to communicate and share info. There were no global accounts and no convenient translation tools.
Templates are still not global, even though there is huge demand for it,[1] and a lot of community process are implemented using templates: requests for deletion, requests for unblocking, article sorting for WikiProjects, stub sorting. Many of these things could be unified, at least partially, by making templates global, and among many benefits, it would make research easier, too.
[1] It came at #3 in the Community Wishlist vote in 2015, and at #1 in 2016. Despite this demand, it was not implemented :(
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
בתאריך יום ד׳, 2 באוק׳ 2019 ב-14:37 מאת Jan Dittrich < jan.dittrich@wikimedia.de>:
Hello researchers,
A lot of research on Wikipedia is published in English and also uses the English Wikipedia as source of data or researchers get their participants via English Wikipedia [0].
A frequent criticism I meet when discussing such research with non-en.wp community members is that their Wikipedia is different and the results of en.wp base research are problematic/incomparable/totally useless.
So I want to ask:
- Do you know of research comparing different Wikis, preferably across
language versions? [1]
- How would you deal with such criticism, particularly of the "if it
is not about 'my' wp it is useless"-kind [2]?
Kind Regards, Jan
[0] Plausible due to academi fields, particularly Computer Science, publishing mainly in english, size and WMF as actor being US-based. [1] I know of »revisiting "The Rise and Decline" in a Population of Peer Production Projects« (https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3173929), comparing different Wikia-Wikis; Research like "limits of self-organization" (https://firstmonday.org/article/view/1405/1323) that refer to general principles of peer production. Comparisons of Wikipedias across languages and the impact of their different contexts, languages and regulations would be very interesting to me. [2] I'm aware that making heterogeneous things comparable is seen as a core academic/scientific activity in STS research (Law, SL Star, Turnbull…) so I do not want to say, transfer to a different setting is not a problem – but it is certainly not "totally useless" either.
-- Jan Dittrich UX Design/ Research
Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 https://wikimedia.de
Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der Menschheit teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei! https://spenden.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207. _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org