Evening all,
I hope everyone is doing well given the crazy world we’re living in.
I was having a conversation with a few users on Discord today and we were wondering whether wikimedia (or users of other similiar sites would be fine) disproportinately fall into the category of having aspergers, ADHD and other simmilar conditions.
It would be even better if anyone knew what sort of areas these users were more likely to work in.
Following a chat with Issac in #wikimedia-research, I understand there isn’t much support for this kind of research as users may not want to reveal this information and there is no clear reason for collecting the information but if anyone knows of past research or has any information, that would be helpful.
Stay Safe, RhinosF1
There's this study https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:The_Construction_and_Application_of_Personality_Profile_Based_on_User_Behavior_in_Wikipedia but I don't know if it was ever completed (and as you can infer from my posts on the talkpage, I very much hope it was NOT).
In general, any kind of psychometric profiling of Wikipedia editors kind of grosses me out. But as an armchair psychologist myself, as well as a non-neurotypical individual, sure I'm happy to hypothesize that there are many of us in the projects. It takes a certain mindset to find the process of building an encyclopedia using 20-year old software paradigms to be engaging ;)
- J
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 8:49 AM RhinosF1 - rhinosf1@gmail.com wrote:
Evening all,
I hope everyone is doing well given the crazy world we’re living in.
I was having a conversation with a few users on Discord today and we were wondering whether wikimedia (or users of other similiar sites would be fine) disproportinately fall into the category of having aspergers, ADHD and other simmilar conditions.
It would be even better if anyone knew what sort of areas these users were more likely to work in.
Following a chat with Issac in #wikimedia-research, I understand there isn’t much support for this kind of research as users may not want to reveal this information and there is no clear reason for collecting the information but if anyone knows of past research or has any information, that would be helpful.
Stay Safe, RhinosF1 -- Thanks, Samuel _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
I wonder if rather than trying to sort people into existing categories, it would be useful to have a more emergent understanding of Wikimedia and the broader open source community. Obviously we should be careful because it could amount to playing with fire (cf. Cambridge Analytica). *However* there may also be ways to use some of related techniques "for good". With my colleagues at The Open University, we joked about "Milton Keynes Analytica". Specifically, we started from the point of view thinking about how to model 'values'. There's some overlap with psychological traits (e.g., openness) but I think values particularly lend themselves towards uses that support commons-creation rather than private-exploitation. If you think about the anti-patterns that challenge values and value-based thinking, they are things like "dogma" (which would tend to shut down conversations rather than use them as an opportunity to explore multiple points of view). In this sense it seems within Wikimedia's remit to embrace values, especially the values of contributors and users.
Hi,
I saw that J and I don’t think (luckily) it ever finished.
Your comment about it taking “a certain mindset” is very true and the reason behind this post.
Joe, If you can help us bring any data to “good use” allowing a “more emergent understanding” then please feel free to fire out suggestions.
Thanks!
On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 17:11, Joe Corneli holtzermann17@gmail.com wrote:
I wonder if rather than trying to sort people into existing categories, it would be useful to have a more emergent understanding of Wikimedia and the broader open source community. Obviously we should be careful because it could amount to playing with fire (cf. Cambridge Analytica). *However* there may also be ways to use some of related techniques "for good". With my colleagues at The Open University, we joked about "Milton Keynes Analytica". Specifically, we started from the point of view thinking about how to model 'values'. There's some overlap with psychological traits (e.g., openness) but I think values particularly lend themselves towards uses that support commons-creation rather than private-exploitation. If you think about the anti-patterns that challenge values and value-based thinking, they are things like "dogma" (which would tend to shut down conversations rather than use them as an opportunity to explore multiple points of view). In this sense it seems within Wikimedia's remit to embrace values, especially the values of contributors and users. _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Hoi, We regularly have problems with people. We have people who are banned because people think they are problematic. We have banned people who have contributed hugely to our projects. The notion that it is stigmatising is a notion whereby we wash our hands in innocence, we do not want to know.
It is one thing that you personally are grossed out but I hope you understand that given that this is an issue we need to address. It is not only people who do not care for rules, it is also the people who obsess about rules. You find it in the excessive attention for Clarice Phelps. People do get hurt, people do get traumatised because of this inattention. Thanks, GerardM
On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 17:58, Jonathan Morgan jmorgan@wikimedia.org wrote:
There's this study < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:The_Construction_and_Application_of...
but I don't know if it was ever completed (and as you can infer from my posts on the talkpage, I very much hope it was NOT).
In general, any kind of psychometric profiling of Wikipedia editors kind of grosses me out. But as an armchair psychologist myself, as well as a non-neurotypical individual, sure I'm happy to hypothesize that there are many of us in the projects. It takes a certain mindset to find the process of building an encyclopedia using 20-year old software paradigms to be engaging ;)
- J
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 8:49 AM RhinosF1 - rhinosf1@gmail.com wrote:
Evening all,
I hope everyone is doing well given the crazy world we’re living in.
I was having a conversation with a few users on Discord today and we were wondering whether wikimedia (or users of other similiar sites would be fine) disproportinately fall into the category of having aspergers, ADHD and other simmilar conditions.
It would be even better if anyone knew what sort of areas these users
were
more likely to work in.
Following a chat with Issac in #wikimedia-research, I understand there isn’t much support for this kind of research as users may not want to reveal this information and there is no clear reason for collecting the information but if anyone knows of past research or has any information, that would be helpful.
Stay Safe, RhinosF1 -- Thanks, Samuel _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- Jonathan T. Morgan Senior Design Researcher Wikimedia Foundation User:Jmorgan (WMF) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF) (Uses He/Him)
*Please note that I do not expect a response from you on evenings or weekends* _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Hey,
I think the quote “ Wikipedians are not disproportionately ADHD, perhaps the reverse.” is an interesting opinion as the view of many seems to be that Wikimedia Projects require charectersitics common of people in those groups.
Gerard, I agree that we can have issues with people.
Thanks!
On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 19:29, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, We regularly have problems with people. We have people who are banned because people think they are problematic. We have banned people who have contributed hugely to our projects. The notion that it is stigmatising is a notion whereby we wash our hands in innocence, we do not want to know.
It is one thing that you personally are grossed out but I hope you understand that given that this is an issue we need to address. It is not only people who do not care for rules, it is also the people who obsess about rules. You find it in the excessive attention for Clarice Phelps. People do get hurt, people do get traumatised because of this inattention. Thanks, GerardM
On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 17:58, Jonathan Morgan jmorgan@wikimedia.org wrote:
There's this study <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:The_Construction_and_Application_of...
but I don't know if it was ever completed (and as you can infer from my posts on the talkpage, I very much hope it was NOT).
In general, any kind of psychometric profiling of Wikipedia editors kind
of
grosses me out. But as an armchair psychologist myself, as well as a non-neurotypical individual, sure I'm happy to hypothesize that there are many of us in the projects. It takes a certain mindset to find the
process
of building an encyclopedia using 20-year old software paradigms to be engaging ;)
- J
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 8:49 AM RhinosF1 - rhinosf1@gmail.com wrote:
Evening all,
I hope everyone is doing well given the crazy world we’re living in.
I was having a conversation with a few users on Discord today and we
were
wondering whether wikimedia (or users of other similiar sites would be fine) disproportinately fall into the category of having aspergers,
ADHD
and other simmilar conditions.
It would be even better if anyone knew what sort of areas these users
were
more likely to work in.
Following a chat with Issac in #wikimedia-research, I understand there isn’t much support for this kind of research as users may not want to reveal this information and there is no clear reason for collecting the information but if anyone knows of past research or has any
information,
that would be helpful.
Stay Safe, RhinosF1 -- Thanks, Samuel _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- Jonathan T. Morgan Senior Design Researcher Wikimedia Foundation User:Jmorgan (WMF) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF) (Uses He/Him)
*Please note that I do not expect a response from you on evenings or weekends* _______________________________________________ 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
Hi RhinosF1,
If you already haven't seen it, you may be interested to check out StackOverflow's Annual Developer Survey. Every year, they ask developers across the globe a variety of questions including their demographics and within that they have a category called developer profile. Check out their 2019 results [1]. They specifically collect data on mood or emotional disorder, anxiety disorder, concentration and/or memory disorder, and autism spectrum disorder: https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2019#developer-profile-_-disabilit...
Best, Leila
[1] https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2019
-- Leila Zia Head of Research Wikimedia Foundation
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 11:50 AM RhinosF1 - rhinosf1@gmail.com wrote:
Hey,
I think the quote “ Wikipedians are not disproportionately ADHD, perhaps the reverse.” is an interesting opinion as the view of many seems to be that Wikimedia Projects require charectersitics common of people in those groups.
Gerard, I agree that we can have issues with people.
Thanks!
On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 19:29, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, We regularly have problems with people. We have people who are banned because people think they are problematic. We have banned people who have contributed hugely to our projects. The notion that it is stigmatising is a notion whereby we wash our hands in innocence, we do not want to know.
It is one thing that you personally are grossed out but I hope you understand that given that this is an issue we need to address. It is not only people who do not care for rules, it is also the people who obsess about rules. You find it in the excessive attention for Clarice Phelps. People do get hurt, people do get traumatised because of this inattention. Thanks, GerardM
On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 17:58, Jonathan Morgan jmorgan@wikimedia.org wrote:
There's this study <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:The_Construction_and_Application_of...
but I don't know if it was ever completed (and as you can infer from my posts on the talkpage, I very much hope it was NOT).
In general, any kind of psychometric profiling of Wikipedia editors kind
of
grosses me out. But as an armchair psychologist myself, as well as a non-neurotypical individual, sure I'm happy to hypothesize that there are many of us in the projects. It takes a certain mindset to find the
process
of building an encyclopedia using 20-year old software paradigms to be engaging ;)
- J
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 8:49 AM RhinosF1 - rhinosf1@gmail.com wrote:
Evening all,
I hope everyone is doing well given the crazy world we’re living in.
I was having a conversation with a few users on Discord today and we
were
wondering whether wikimedia (or users of other similiar sites would be fine) disproportinately fall into the category of having aspergers,
ADHD
and other simmilar conditions.
It would be even better if anyone knew what sort of areas these users
were
more likely to work in.
Following a chat with Issac in #wikimedia-research, I understand there isn’t much support for this kind of research as users may not want to reveal this information and there is no clear reason for collecting the information but if anyone knows of past research or has any
information,
that would be helpful.
Stay Safe, RhinosF1 -- Thanks, Samuel _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- Jonathan T. Morgan Senior Design Researcher Wikimedia Foundation User:Jmorgan (WMF) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF) (Uses He/Him)
*Please note that I do not expect a response from you on evenings or weekends* _______________________________________________ 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
-- Thanks, Samuel _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Hi Lelia,
That provides a lot of insight! I’ll give it a deep look tommorow.
Applies to some areas of the movement but not more content-related ones.
Thanks!
On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 20:02, Leila Zia lzia@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi RhinosF1,
If you already haven't seen it, you may be interested to check out StackOverflow's Annual Developer Survey. Every year, they ask developers across the globe a variety of questions including their demographics and within that they have a category called developer profile. Check out their 2019 results [1]. They specifically collect data on mood or emotional disorder, anxiety disorder, concentration and/or memory disorder, and autism spectrum disorder:
https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2019#developer-profile-_-disabilit...
Best, Leila
[1] https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2019
-- Leila Zia Head of Research Wikimedia Foundation
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 11:50 AM RhinosF1 - rhinosf1@gmail.com wrote:
Hey,
I think the quote “ Wikipedians are not disproportionately ADHD, perhaps the reverse.” is an interesting opinion as the view of many seems to be that Wikimedia Projects require charectersitics common of people in those groups.
Gerard, I agree that we can have issues with people.
Thanks!
On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 19:29, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, We regularly have problems with people. We have people who are banned because people think they are problematic. We have banned people who
have
contributed hugely to our projects. The notion that it is stigmatising
is a
notion whereby we wash our hands in innocence, we do not want to know.
It is one thing that you personally are grossed out but I hope you understand that given that this is an issue we need to address. It is
not
only people who do not care for rules, it is also the people who obsess about rules. You find it in the excessive attention for Clarice Phelps. People do get hurt, people do get traumatised because of this
inattention.
Thanks, GerardM
On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 17:58, Jonathan Morgan jmorgan@wikimedia.org wrote:
There's this study <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:The_Construction_and_Application_of...
but I don't know if it was ever completed (and as you can infer from
my
posts on the talkpage, I very much hope it was NOT).
In general, any kind of psychometric profiling of Wikipedia editors
kind
of
grosses me out. But as an armchair psychologist myself, as well as a non-neurotypical individual, sure I'm happy to hypothesize that
there are
many of us in the projects. It takes a certain mindset to find the
process
of building an encyclopedia using 20-year old software paradigms to
be
engaging ;)
- J
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 8:49 AM RhinosF1 - rhinosf1@gmail.com
wrote:
Evening all,
I hope everyone is doing well given the crazy world we’re living
in.
I was having a conversation with a few users on Discord today and
we
were
wondering whether wikimedia (or users of other similiar sites
would be
fine) disproportinately fall into the category of having aspergers,
ADHD
and other simmilar conditions.
It would be even better if anyone knew what sort of areas these
users
were
more likely to work in.
Following a chat with Issac in #wikimedia-research, I understand
there
isn’t much support for this kind of research as users may not want
to
reveal this information and there is no clear reason for
collecting the
information but if anyone knows of past research or has any
information,
that would be helpful.
Stay Safe, RhinosF1 -- Thanks, Samuel _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- Jonathan T. Morgan Senior Design Researcher Wikimedia Foundation User:Jmorgan (WMF) <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)%3E
(Uses He/Him)
*Please note that I do not expect a response from you on evenings or weekends* _______________________________________________ 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
-- Thanks, Samuel _______________________________________________ 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
Gerard,
To clarify, what grosses me out ("makes me uncomfortable") is the prospect of third parties gathering and storing sensitive personal information about individual Wikipedia editors without proper oversight mechanisms. Health and medical data is one of the most sensitive kinds of individual data that exists. In the United States, as in many other countries, access to this information is heavily regulated--as it should be. Researchers who gather this kind of data should be held to a very high standard of proof that they will use the data responsibly, and take specific care to avoid information leakage. Ideally, they should be held legally responsible for proper behavior--and that depends heavily on their local jurisdiction and on their own truthfulness and transparency--things the rest of us in the movement have little control over. In my opinion, anyone who cares about both science and ethics should always err on the side of avoiding harm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belmont_Report--even if that sometimes means refraining from asking research questions that have scientific merit or that could yield practical community benefit.
To your comment about Clarice Phelps, I'm not aware of this individual (or article?) and do not know what you are referring to. But I would caution you not to make public speculative statements about the mental health status of any editor, or make generalizations about the motivations or actions of all people who you believe have particular mental characteristics, based on specific incidents you have witnessed or interactions you have had. If I have misread your statement, I apologize for the error.
Best, Jonathan
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 11:29 AM Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, We regularly have problems with people. We have people who are banned because people think they are problematic. We have banned people who have contributed hugely to our projects. The notion that it is stigmatising is a notion whereby we wash our hands in innocence, we do not want to know.
It is one thing that you personally are grossed out but I hope you understand that given that this is an issue we need to address. It is not only people who do not care for rules, it is also the people who obsess about rules. You find it in the excessive attention for Clarice Phelps. People do get hurt, people do get traumatised because of this inattention. Thanks, GerardM
On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 17:58, Jonathan Morgan jmorgan@wikimedia.org wrote:
There's this study <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:The_Construction_and_Application_of...
but I don't know if it was ever completed (and as you can infer from my posts on the talkpage, I very much hope it was NOT).
In general, any kind of psychometric profiling of Wikipedia editors kind
of
grosses me out. But as an armchair psychologist myself, as well as a non-neurotypical individual, sure I'm happy to hypothesize that there are many of us in the projects. It takes a certain mindset to find the
process
of building an encyclopedia using 20-year old software paradigms to be engaging ;)
- J
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 8:49 AM RhinosF1 - rhinosf1@gmail.com wrote:
Evening all,
I hope everyone is doing well given the crazy world we’re living in.
I was having a conversation with a few users on Discord today and we
were
wondering whether wikimedia (or users of other similiar sites would be fine) disproportinately fall into the category of having aspergers,
ADHD
and other simmilar conditions.
It would be even better if anyone knew what sort of areas these users
were
more likely to work in.
Following a chat with Issac in #wikimedia-research, I understand there isn’t much support for this kind of research as users may not want to reveal this information and there is no clear reason for collecting the information but if anyone knows of past research or has any
information,
that would be helpful.
Stay Safe, RhinosF1 -- Thanks, Samuel _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- Jonathan T. Morgan Senior Design Researcher Wikimedia Foundation User:Jmorgan (WMF) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF) (Uses He/Him)
*Please note that I do not expect a response from you on evenings or weekends* _______________________________________________ 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 section fills in some of the gaps left by the statement: "It is not only people who do not care for rules, it is also the people who obsess about rules." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarice_Phelps#Wikipedia_article
On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 21:49, Joe Corneli holtzermann17@gmail.com wrote:
This section fills in some of the gaps left by the statement: "It is not only people who do not care for rules, it is also the people who obsess about rules." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarice_Phelps#Wikipedia_article
A little history: Clarice Phelps is notable both as a scientist and for being deleted from Wikipedia as non-notable :-), which resulted in significant media coverage. The admin "Rama" tried to "do the right thing" in the wrong manner by restoring the article and - without supporters - lost his tools: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama#Locus...
Demian (Aron)
Hoi, If this stands on its own, ok. It does not, it is part and parcel of the bias you find in English Wikipedia. Informing about one case does not negate even address the obsession with rules. Thanks, GerardM
On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 at 02:03, Aron Demian aronmanning5@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 21:49, Joe Corneli holtzermann17@gmail.com wrote:
This section fills in some of the gaps left by the statement: "It is not only people who do not care for rules, it is also the people who obsess about rules." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarice_Phelps#Wikipedia_article
A little history: Clarice Phelps is notable both as a scientist and for being deleted from Wikipedia as non-notable :-), which resulted in significant media coverage. The admin "Rama" tried to "do the right thing" in the wrong manner by restoring the article and - without supporters - lost his tools:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama#Locus...
Demian (Aron) _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Thank you for clarifying Jonathan. I am with you when it comes to the sensitivity of handling any data of this sort (and any personal data, for that matter).
As to the need for this kind of data, I believe that it is actually extremely important. I have to say that in 15 years in the movement, I have been wondering how we could better learn about the people who participate in our projects and how this knowledge would affect the way we interact with each other. I think that there are a lot of things we are not doing well right now *because* we don't know for sure where people in the movement actually even categorize themselves. The same way we translate things for people to have them in their own language, understanding people's neurological differences or social constraints and their prevalence in our communities might be tremendously helpful in order to design training for conflict resolution, newcomers integration, staff training to work with community members, and even, I imagine, for something as important as writing the code of conduct in a way that makes sense for *everyone*.
As I am developing my program around onboarding WMF staff around community and movement, this is definitely something I want to make sure that we don't overlook, because I think that the better we understand each other, the easier it is to work together productively.
Best,
Delphine
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 9:35 PM Jonathan Morgan jmorgan@wikimedia.org wrote:
Gerard,
To clarify, what grosses me out ("makes me uncomfortable") is the prospect of third parties gathering and storing sensitive personal information about individual Wikipedia editors without proper oversight mechanisms. Health and medical data is one of the most sensitive kinds of individual data that exists. In the United States, as in many other countries, access to this information is heavily regulated--as it should be. Researchers who gather this kind of data should be held to a very high standard of proof that they will use the data responsibly, and take specific care to avoid information leakage. Ideally, they should be held legally responsible for proper behavior--and that depends heavily on their local jurisdiction and on their own truthfulness and transparency--things the rest of us in the movement have little control over. In my opinion, anyone who cares about both science and ethics should always err on the side of avoiding harm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belmont_Report--even if that sometimes means refraining from asking research questions that have scientific merit or that could yield practical community benefit.
To your comment about Clarice Phelps, I'm not aware of this individual (or article?) and do not know what you are referring to. But I would caution you not to make public speculative statements about the mental health status of any editor, or make generalizations about the motivations or actions of all people who you believe have particular mental characteristics, based on specific incidents you have witnessed or interactions you have had. If I have misread your statement, I apologize for the error.
Best, Jonathan
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 11:29 AM Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, We regularly have problems with people. We have people who are banned because people think they are problematic. We have banned people who have contributed hugely to our projects. The notion that it is stigmatising
is a
notion whereby we wash our hands in innocence, we do not want to know.
It is one thing that you personally are grossed out but I hope you understand that given that this is an issue we need to address. It is not only people who do not care for rules, it is also the people who obsess about rules. You find it in the excessive attention for Clarice Phelps. People do get hurt, people do get traumatised because of this
inattention.
Thanks, GerardM
On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 17:58, Jonathan Morgan jmorgan@wikimedia.org wrote:
There's this study <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:The_Construction_and_Application_of...
but I don't know if it was ever completed (and as you can infer from my posts on the talkpage, I very much hope it was NOT).
In general, any kind of psychometric profiling of Wikipedia editors
kind
of
grosses me out. But as an armchair psychologist myself, as well as a non-neurotypical individual, sure I'm happy to hypothesize that there
are
many of us in the projects. It takes a certain mindset to find the
process
of building an encyclopedia using 20-year old software paradigms to be engaging ;)
- J
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 8:49 AM RhinosF1 - rhinosf1@gmail.com wrote:
Evening all,
I hope everyone is doing well given the crazy world we’re living in.
I was having a conversation with a few users on Discord today and we
were
wondering whether wikimedia (or users of other similiar sites would
be
fine) disproportinately fall into the category of having aspergers,
ADHD
and other simmilar conditions.
It would be even better if anyone knew what sort of areas these users
were
more likely to work in.
Following a chat with Issac in #wikimedia-research, I understand
there
isn’t much support for this kind of research as users may not want to reveal this information and there is no clear reason for collecting
the
information but if anyone knows of past research or has any
information,
that would be helpful.
Stay Safe, RhinosF1 -- Thanks, Samuel _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- Jonathan T. Morgan Senior Design Researcher Wikimedia Foundation User:Jmorgan (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)
(Uses He/Him)
*Please note that I do not expect a response from you on evenings or weekends* _______________________________________________ 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
-- Jonathan T. Morgan Senior Design Researcher Wikimedia Foundation User:Jmorgan (WMF) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF) (Uses He/Him)
*Please note that I do not expect a response from you on evenings or weekends* _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Hi,
I think everyone should be very sensitive around personal data, even more so of this nature.
As long as we can make the need for the data clear to participants and those involved, it should be acceptable in my opinion and we can probably learn things about the project dyamics from such research.
It is definately better if we can improve how we understand each other.
Thanks, RhinosF1
On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 at 12:14, Delphine Ménard dmenard@wikimedia.org wrote:
Thank you for clarifying Jonathan. I am with you when it comes to the sensitivity of handling any data of this sort (and any personal data, for that matter).
As to the need for this kind of data, I believe that it is actually extremely important. I have to say that in 15 years in the movement, I have been wondering how we could better learn about the people who participate in our projects and how this knowledge would affect the way we interact with each other. I think that there are a lot of things we are not doing well right now *because* we don't know for sure where people in the movement actually even categorize themselves. The same way we translate things for people to have them in their own language, understanding people's neurological differences or social constraints and their prevalence in our communities might be tremendously helpful in order to design training for conflict resolution, newcomers integration, staff training to work with community members, and even, I imagine, for something as important as writing the code of conduct in a way that makes sense for *everyone*.
As I am developing my program around onboarding WMF staff around community and movement, this is definitely something I want to make sure that we don't overlook, because I think that the better we understand each other, the easier it is to work together productively.
Best,
Delphine
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 9:35 PM Jonathan Morgan jmorgan@wikimedia.org wrote:
Gerard,
To clarify, what grosses me out ("makes me uncomfortable") is the
prospect
of third parties gathering and storing sensitive personal information
about
individual Wikipedia editors without proper oversight mechanisms. Health and medical data is one of the most sensitive kinds of individual data
that
exists. In the United States, as in many other countries, access to this information is heavily regulated--as it should be. Researchers who gather this kind of data should be held to a very high standard of proof that
they
will use the data responsibly, and take specific care to avoid
information
leakage. Ideally, they should be held legally responsible for proper behavior--and that depends heavily on their local jurisdiction and on
their
own truthfulness and transparency--things the rest of us in the movement have little control over. In my opinion, anyone who cares about both science and ethics should always err on the side of avoiding harm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belmont_Report--even if that sometimes means refraining from asking research questions that have scientific
merit
or that could yield practical community benefit.
To your comment about Clarice Phelps, I'm not aware of this individual
(or
article?) and do not know what you are referring to. But I would caution you not to make public speculative statements about the mental health status of any editor, or make generalizations about the motivations or actions of all people who you believe have particular mental characteristics, based on specific incidents you have witnessed or interactions you have had. If I have misread your statement, I apologize for the error.
Best, Jonathan
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 11:29 AM Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, We regularly have problems with people. We have people who are banned because people think they are problematic. We have banned people who
have
contributed hugely to our projects. The notion that it is stigmatising
is a
notion whereby we wash our hands in innocence, we do not want to know.
It is one thing that you personally are grossed out but I hope you understand that given that this is an issue we need to address. It is
not
only people who do not care for rules, it is also the people who obsess about rules. You find it in the excessive attention for Clarice Phelps. People do get hurt, people do get traumatised because of this
inattention.
Thanks, GerardM
On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 17:58, Jonathan Morgan jmorgan@wikimedia.org wrote:
There's this study <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:The_Construction_and_Application_of...
but I don't know if it was ever completed (and as you can infer from
my
posts on the talkpage, I very much hope it was NOT).
In general, any kind of psychometric profiling of Wikipedia editors
kind
of
grosses me out. But as an armchair psychologist myself, as well as a non-neurotypical individual, sure I'm happy to hypothesize that there
are
many of us in the projects. It takes a certain mindset to find the
process
of building an encyclopedia using 20-year old software paradigms to
be
engaging ;)
- J
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 8:49 AM RhinosF1 - rhinosf1@gmail.com
wrote:
Evening all,
I hope everyone is doing well given the crazy world we’re living
in.
I was having a conversation with a few users on Discord today and
we
were
wondering whether wikimedia (or users of other similiar sites would
be
fine) disproportinately fall into the category of having aspergers,
ADHD
and other simmilar conditions.
It would be even better if anyone knew what sort of areas these
users
were
more likely to work in.
Following a chat with Issac in #wikimedia-research, I understand
there
isn’t much support for this kind of research as users may not want
to
reveal this information and there is no clear reason for collecting
the
information but if anyone knows of past research or has any
information,
that would be helpful.
Stay Safe, RhinosF1 -- Thanks, Samuel _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- Jonathan T. Morgan Senior Design Researcher Wikimedia Foundation User:Jmorgan (WMF) <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)
(Uses He/Him)
*Please note that I do not expect a response from you on evenings or weekends* _______________________________________________ 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
-- Jonathan T. Morgan Senior Design Researcher Wikimedia Foundation User:Jmorgan (WMF) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF) (Uses He/Him)
*Please note that I do not expect a response from you on evenings or weekends* _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- *Delphine Ménard* (she/her) Senior Orientation Specialist Strategy Liaison User:Delphine_(WMF) Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/ _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
For the reviews that summarized research some time ago:
The people's encyclopedia under the gaze of the sages: A systematic review of scholarly research on Wikipedia (page 56 https://orbit.dtu.dk/ws/files/52914302/SSRN_id2021326.pdf
Wikipedia research and tools: Review and comments (page 23) http://www.imm.dtu.dk/pubdb/views/edoc_download.php/6012/pdf/imm6012.pdf
we only found the Amichai-Hamburger et al. study (or at least I only recall finding):
Yair Amichai-Hamburger, Naama Lamdan, Rinat Madiel, and Tsahi Hayat. Personality characteristics of wikipedia members. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(6):679–681, December 2008.
I summarized it with:
Application of the Big Five Inventory and Real-Me personality questionnaires to 139 Wikipedia and non-Wikipedia users. The recruitment was based on targeting posting of links. Wikipedians scored lower on agreeableness and higher on openness. Differences in extroversion and conscientiousness depended on the sex of the subject.
My guess is that Wikipedians are not disproportionately ADHD, perhaps the reverse.
Finn Årup Nielsen
On 4/2/20 5:49 PM, RhinosF1 - wrote:
Evening all,
I hope everyone is doing well given the crazy world we’re living in.
I was having a conversation with a few users on Discord today and we were wondering whether wikimedia (or users of other similiar sites would be fine) disproportinately fall into the category of having aspergers, ADHD and other simmilar conditions.
It would be even better if anyone knew what sort of areas these users were more likely to work in.
Following a chat with Issac in #wikimedia-research, I understand there isn’t much support for this kind of research as users may not want to reveal this information and there is no clear reason for collecting the information but if anyone knows of past research or has any information, that would be helpful.
Stay Safe, RhinosF1
The results of that Amichai-Hamburger et al. study were later questioned, see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2013/March#Grumpiness_du...
Here is another one that studied Big Five personality traits: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2017/February#%22Relatio... Our reviewer noted a lack of statistical power, however.
This (personal, non-scientific) essay may be worth reading: https://guillaumepaumier.com/2015/07/29/autistic-wikipedian/
Lastly (for those reading along here), OP has since created https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Editing_and_Neurotypes , and it has been noted that in a Dutch survey, "One in eight editors (13%) say they have an autism spectrum disorder" ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EN_-_Report_survey_editors_Dutch_lan... ).
Regards, HaeB
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 10:59 AM Finn Aarup Nielsen fn@imm.dtu.dk wrote:
For the reviews that summarized research some time ago:
The people's encyclopedia under the gaze of the sages: A systematic review of scholarly research on Wikipedia (page 56 https://orbit.dtu.dk/ws/files/52914302/SSRN_id2021326.pdf
Wikipedia research and tools: Review and comments (page 23) http://www.imm.dtu.dk/pubdb/views/edoc_download.php/6012/pdf/imm6012.pdf
we only found the Amichai-Hamburger et al. study (or at least I only recall finding):
Yair Amichai-Hamburger, Naama Lamdan, Rinat Madiel, and Tsahi Hayat. Personality characteristics of wikipedia members. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(6):679–681, December 2008.
I summarized it with:
Application of the Big Five Inventory and Real-Me personality questionnaires to 139 Wikipedia and non-Wikipedia users. The recruitment was based on targeting posting of links. Wikipedians scored lower on agreeableness and higher on openness. Differences in extroversion and conscientiousness depended on the sex of the subject.
My guess is that Wikipedians are not disproportionately ADHD, perhaps the reverse.
Finn Årup Nielsen
On 4/2/20 5:49 PM, RhinosF1 - wrote:
Evening all,
I hope everyone is doing well given the crazy world we’re living in.
I was having a conversation with a few users on Discord today and we were wondering whether wikimedia (or users of other similiar sites would be fine) disproportinately fall into the category of having aspergers, ADHD and other simmilar conditions.
It would be even better if anyone knew what sort of areas these users
were
more likely to work in.
Following a chat with Issac in #wikimedia-research, I understand there isn’t much support for this kind of research as users may not want to reveal this information and there is no clear reason for collecting the information but if anyone knows of past research or has any information, that would be helpful.
Stay Safe, RhinosF1
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Thanks for summing up developments.
I intend to start working on this over the next few weeks once I’ve managed to get my head round the unusual situations we’re left in and start sorting what I need to and can do out!
Thanks, Samuel
On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 at 05:49, Tilman Bayer haebwiki@gmail.com wrote:
The results of that Amichai-Hamburger et al. study were later questioned, see
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2013/March#Grumpiness_du...
Here is another one that studied Big Five personality traits:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2017/February#%22Relatio... Our reviewer noted a lack of statistical power, however.
This (personal, non-scientific) essay may be worth reading: https://guillaumepaumier.com/2015/07/29/autistic-wikipedian/
Lastly (for those reading along here), OP has since created https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Editing_and_Neurotypes , and it has been noted that in a Dutch survey, "One in eight editors (13%) say they have an autism spectrum disorder" (
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EN_-_Report_survey_editors_Dutch_lan... ).
Regards, HaeB
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 10:59 AM Finn Aarup Nielsen fn@imm.dtu.dk wrote:
For the reviews that summarized research some time ago:
The people's encyclopedia under the gaze of the sages: A systematic review of scholarly research on Wikipedia (page 56 https://orbit.dtu.dk/ws/files/52914302/SSRN_id2021326.pdf
Wikipedia research and tools: Review and comments (page 23) http://www.imm.dtu.dk/pubdb/views/edoc_download.php/6012/pdf/imm6012.pdf
we only found the Amichai-Hamburger et al. study (or at least I only recall finding):
Yair Amichai-Hamburger, Naama Lamdan, Rinat Madiel, and Tsahi Hayat. Personality characteristics of wikipedia members. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(6):679–681, December 2008.
I summarized it with:
Application of the Big Five Inventory and Real-Me personality questionnaires to 139 Wikipedia and non-Wikipedia users. The recruitment was based on targeting posting of links. Wikipedians scored lower on agreeableness and higher on openness. Differences in extroversion and conscientiousness depended on the sex of the subject.
My guess is that Wikipedians are not disproportionately ADHD, perhaps the reverse.
Finn Årup Nielsen
On 4/2/20 5:49 PM, RhinosF1 - wrote:
Evening all,
I hope everyone is doing well given the crazy world we’re living in.
I was having a conversation with a few users on Discord today and we
were
wondering whether wikimedia (or users of other similiar sites would be fine) disproportinately fall into the category of having aspergers,
ADHD
and other simmilar conditions.
It would be even better if anyone knew what sort of areas these users
were
more likely to work in.
Following a chat with Issac in #wikimedia-research, I understand there isn’t much support for this kind of research as users may not want to reveal this information and there is no clear reason for collecting the information but if anyone knows of past research or has any
information,
that would be helpful.
Stay Safe, RhinosF1
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
I can fully understand that Wikipedians might be reluctant to reveal this sort of information, especially if they edit under their own name. But some do, and there are currently 624 Wikipedians who have put themselves in the category https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Wikipedians_with_Asperge... OK that includes quite a few duplicates, but so do the other user categories, most of which seem a lot smaller. By contrast there doesn't seem to be an ADHD category.
Equally, I can remember several discussions where people have commented on the need for things to be done a certain way to accommodate people on that spectrum, while it is rare for similar comments to come up about other issues - colour blindness and other vision issues occasionally, but after the needs of people who use "text to speech", I wouldn't be surprised if Aspergers was the second most common I have seen mentioned in the community.
Regards
Jonathan
On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 16:49, RhinosF1 - rhinosf1@gmail.com wrote:
Evening all,
I hope everyone is doing well given the crazy world we’re living in.
I was having a conversation with a few users on Discord today and we were wondering whether wikimedia (or users of other similiar sites would be fine) disproportinately fall into the category of having aspergers, ADHD and other simmilar conditions.
It would be even better if anyone knew what sort of areas these users were more likely to work in.
Following a chat with Issac in #wikimedia-research, I understand there isn’t much support for this kind of research as users may not want to reveal this information and there is no clear reason for collecting the information but if anyone knows of past research or has any information, that would be helpful.
Stay Safe, RhinosF1 -- Thanks, Samuel _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Hey Jonathon,
I saw that earlier but what the category doesn’t show is what percentage of editors are and whether that’s disproportiante.
I don’t think we can get that from a category due to the differing ways people handle their userspace.
Thanks!
On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 21:41, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com wrote:
I can fully understand that Wikipedians might be reluctant to reveal this sort of information, especially if they edit under their own name. But some do, and there are currently 624 Wikipedians who have put themselves in the category
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Wikipedians_with_Asperge... OK that includes quite a few duplicates, but so do the other user categories, most of which seem a lot smaller. By contrast there doesn't seem to be an ADHD category.
Equally, I can remember several discussions where people have commented on the need for things to be done a certain way to accommodate people on that spectrum, while it is rare for similar comments to come up about other issues - colour blindness and other vision issues occasionally, but after the needs of people who use "text to speech", I wouldn't be surprised if Aspergers was the second most common I have seen mentioned in the community.
Regards
Jonathan
On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 16:49, RhinosF1 - rhinosf1@gmail.com wrote:
Evening all,
I hope everyone is doing well given the crazy world we’re living in.
I was having a conversation with a few users on Discord today and we were wondering whether wikimedia (or users of other similiar sites would be fine) disproportinately fall into the category of having aspergers, ADHD and other simmilar conditions.
It would be even better if anyone knew what sort of areas these users
were
more likely to work in.
Following a chat with Issac in #wikimedia-research, I understand there isn’t much support for this kind of research as users may not want to reveal this information and there is no clear reason for collecting the information but if anyone knows of past research or has any information, that would be helpful.
Stay Safe, RhinosF1 -- Thanks, Samuel _______________________________________________ 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
See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Health/Mental and semi-related https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Personality plus the essays https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Obsessive%E2%80%93compulsive_disorde... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:High-functioning_autism_and_Asperger... (plus the French and Chinese Wikipedia's equivalent pages for that second essay, which likely have different content)
Sidenote: I worry about those userboxes, for the same reasons mentioned in this thread. I wonder if there ought to be a warning at the top of that listing-page, reminding editors to be careful... [but userboxes are a complicated can of worms, and it's probably been discussed before, so I won't wade into it.]
--Quiddity
I don’t think userboxes are the best thing to use as evidence for any claim
On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 23:38, Nick Wilson (Quiddity) nwilson@wikimedia.org wrote:
See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Health/Mental and semi-related https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Personality plus the essays
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Obsessive%E2%80%93compulsive_disorde...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:High-functioning_autism_and_Asperger... (plus the French and Chinese Wikipedia's equivalent pages for that second essay, which likely have different content)
Sidenote: I worry about those userboxes, for the same reasons mentioned in this thread. I wonder if there ought to be a warning at the top of that listing-page, reminding editors to be careful... [but userboxes are a complicated can of worms, and it's probably been discussed before, so I won't wade into it.]
--Quiddity _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Thanks for your responses!
I’ll probably be here for the office hour at the end of the month.
My thoughts are that it would be interesting research to do but we’d probably have to target about ~1 000 editors, to get ~100 responses and/or post on the village pumps of most English and multilingual wikis.
We might need to consider asking about the experience that users in these groups but I’d also consider asking:
1) Which of the following groups you fit into: - Neurotypical - Aspergers / Autism Spectrum Disorder - ADHD - Other non-neurotypical disorder
2) Which type of editor you are? - Content Curator - Counter Vandalism Network - Copy-Editor - Image & File curator - Technical Contributor
3) What your homewiki is?
4) Which wikis you are most active in?
Feel free to suggest more possible options and questions, especially wording about experience.
I would also love it if someone can agree to collabarate on it and help get research pages set up & approved.
I probably would collect Wikimedia Username so we can filter duplicate responses and not remond people more than once if we send a reminder but destroy that shortly after it’s complete.
Thanks, RhinosF1
On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 16:49, RhinosF1 - rhinosf1@gmail.com wrote:
Evening all,
I hope everyone is doing well given the crazy world we’re living in.
I was having a conversation with a few users on Discord today and we were wondering whether wikimedia (or users of other similiar sites would be fine) disproportinately fall into the category of having aspergers, ADHD and other simmilar conditions.
It would be even better if anyone knew what sort of areas these users were more likely to work in.
Following a chat with Issac in #wikimedia-research, I understand there isn’t much support for this kind of research as users may not want to reveal this information and there is no clear reason for collecting the information but if anyone knows of past research or has any information, that would be helpful.
Stay Safe, RhinosF1 -- Thanks, Samuel
wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org