WikiEN-l December 2011

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

38 participants
20 discussions

Re: [WikiEN-l] Regarding Berkman/Sciences Po study
by James Farrar 11 Dec '11

11 Dec '11

On 10 December 2011 11:38, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Here's the thing. > > Banner adverts are bad. > > Sometimes they're necessary (the fundraiser being the most obvious > example, but other "get involved with Wikipedia/WMF/chapters" stuff > qualifies) - but when they're not, they shouldn't be tolerated. > > Recruiting for a third party's research project is advertising. > [[WP:PROMOTION]] (point 1) is very clear on the matter: it is not > appropriate. > On Dec 10, 2011 3:50 AM, "Dario Taraborelli" <dtaraborelli(a)wikimedia.org> > wrote: > > [deleted because apparently my little text added at the top when I posted > from my phone pushed the message over the list's pathetically small limit. > That was 24 hours ago; apologies for the delay, I couldn't get to a > computer until now.] >

1 0

Regarding Berkman/Sciences Po study
by Dario Taraborelli 10 Dec '11

10 Dec '11

I’d like to give everybody on this list some information on the Berkman/Sciences Po research project that many of you have been discussing here. On Thursday the Wikimedia Foundation announced the launch of a banner to support a study led by a team at the Berkman Center/Sciences Po and recruiting participants from the English Wikipedia editor community [1]. The banner was taken down within hours of its launch after concerns raised in various community forums (the Admin Noticeboard [2], the Village Pump Tech [3], various IRC channels and mailing lists such as foundation-l [4] and internal-l [5]) that the design was confusing, that it was perceived as a commercial ad and that the community approval process and privacy terms were unclear and hardly visible. Here’s what happened until the launch, what went wrong after the launch and what we are planning to do next. ==The prequel== This proposal went through a long review process, involving community forums, the Research Committee and various WMF departments since early 2010. The Berkman research team first approached WMF to discuss this study in January 2010. They suggested a protocol to recruit English Wikipedia contributors to participate in an early version of this study by March 2010 and posted a proposal to the Administrators’ noticeboard to get community feedback [6]. The community response at that time opposed the proposed recruitment protocol (posting individual invitation messages on user talk pages). It was suggested instead that the recruitment should be handled through a CentralNotice banner to be displayed to registered editors, but concerns were raised on how to minimize the disruption. To address these concerns, the proposal went through a full review with the Wikimedia Research Committee, that was completed in July 2011. The RCom evaluated the methods, the recruitment strategy, the language used in the survey and approved the proposal pending a final solution for the recruitment taking into account the concerns expressed by the community [7]. Based on suggestions made by community members (e.g. [8]) the research team started to work on a technical solution to selectively display a banner to a subset of registered editors of the English Wikipedia meeting certain eligibility conditions. WMF agreed to invest engineering effort into a system that would allow CentralNotice to serve contents to a specific set of editors – functionality that would benefit future campaigns run by the community, chapters or the Foundation [9] [10]. A new CentralNotice backend was then designed to look up various editor metrics (i.e. number of contributions, account registration date and editor privileges) – all public information available from our database – and to perform a participant eligibility check against these metrics. A banner would then be displayed to eligible participants, posting the above data (user ID + editor metrics) along with a unique token to the server hosting the survey upon clicking. On the landing page of the survey, participants would have the possibility to read the privacy terms of the survey and decide whether to take it or not. Throughout the review process of this recruitment protocol, the research team received constant feedback from the Foundation’s legal team, the community department, the tech department and the communication team before the campaign went live. The campaign was announced in the CentralNotice calendar one month before its launch [11] and the launch was with a post on the Foundation’s blog. The banner was enabled on December 8 at 11:00pm UTC. 800+ participants completed the study within a few hours since its launch. The banner was then taken down by a meta-admin a few hours after the launch due to the concerns described above. So what went wrong? ==A few explanations we owe you== • Is the Foundation running ads? No, this banner is a recruitment campaign for a research project that has been thoroughly reviewed by the Research Committee. We have a long tradition of supporting recruitment for research about our communities via various sitenotices. The methodology of this project is sound and the recruitment method less invasive than thousands of individual messages posted on user talk pages. We believe this research will help advance our understanding of the dynamics of participation in our projects. Receiving support by the Research Committee implies that all published output and anonymized data produced by this study will be made available under open licenses. [12] The banner also received full Wikimedia Foundation approval before its launch. • Is this campaign conflicting with the fundraiser? No, this banner is running only for a subset of logged-in editors for whom the main fundraiser campaign has already been taken down. We carefully timed this campaign to minimize the impact on the fundraiser and we scheduled it on the CentralNotice calendar with a month notice for this reason. • Is this campaign running at 100% on the English Wikipedia? No, the banner has been designed to target a subsample of the English Wikipedia registered editor population. Based on estimates by the research team, the eligibility criteria apply to about 10,000 very active contributors and about 30,000 new editors of the English Wikipedia. The target number of completed responses is 1500. • Why does the banner include logos of organizations not affiliated with Wikimedia? The design of the banner was based on the decision to give participants as much information as possible about the research team running the project and to set accurate expectations about the study. ==What we are doing now== We realize that despite an extensive review, the launch of this project was not fully advertised on community forums. We plan to shortly resume the campaign (for the time needed by the researchers to complete their responses) after a full redesign of the recruitment protocol in order to address the concerns raised by many of you over the last 24 hours. Here’s what we are doing: • Provide you with better information about the project We asked the research team to promptly set up a FAQ section on the project page on Meta [13], and to be available to address any concern about the study on the discussion page of this project. The project page on Meta will be linked from the recruitment banner itself. • Redesign the banner We understand that the banner design has been interpreted by some as ad-like (even if the goal was to make clear that this study was not being run by WMF, as it implied a redirection to a third party website for performing the experiment). In coordination with the research team, we will come up with a banner design that will be more in line with the concerns expressed by the community (for instance by removing the logos from the banner). • Make privacy terms as transparent as possible Upon clicking on the banner, participants accept to share their username, edit count and user privileges with the research team. The previous version didn’t make it explicit and we are working to address this problem. To make the process totally transparent we will make the acceptance of these terms explicit in the banner itself. Once redirected to the landing page, participants will have to accept the terms of participation in order to enter the study. The project is funded by the European Research Council: the data collected in this study is subject to strict European privacy protocols. The research team will use this data for research purposes only. The research team is not exposed to and does not record participants’ IP addresses. ==How you can help== We would like to hear from you on the redesign of the banner to make sure it meets the expectations of the community and doesn’t lend itself to any kind of confusion. We will post the new banners to Meta and try to address all pending questions before we resume the campaign. This is one of the first times we’re supporting a complex, important research initiative like this one, and I apologize for the bumps in the road. We believe that supporting research is part of our mission: it helps advance our understanding of ourselves. So thanks again for all support you can give in making this a success. Dario Taraborelli Senior Research Analyst, Wikimedia Foundation [1] http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/12/08/experiment-decision-making/ [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incide… [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#Search_… [4] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-December/070742.html [5] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/private/internal-l/2011-December/018842… [6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archiv… [7] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Dynamics_of_Online_Interaction… [8] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-May/065580.html [9] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-May/065558.html [10] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CentralNotice_banner_guidelines [11] http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=CentralNotice/Calendar&oldid=30… [12] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Subject_recruitment [13] meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Dynamics_of_Online_Interactions_and_Behavi…

4 4

Guidelines on how much we take from a source?
by Bod Notbod 09 Dec '11

09 Dec '11

I decided I hadn't reviewed a featured article candidate for a while and Russell T Davies (writer of the Doctor Who reboot) was there. Figured I'd give it a go. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_T_Davies I invite you to look, with reasonable care, at references 1 to 97. Now, not only are they from the same source but it would appear the page numbers are almost all accounted for (although I don't know how long the book is, but I'm willing to guess it's c.219 pages long). And the pages are ref'd in pretty much book order. In short, were I Aldridge & Murray I think I would be feeling pretty hard done by at this point. I should say, I don't have the book and that would be key before making a point too vehemently. Nevertheless, I wonder if we have a policy/guideline on appropriate levels of source mining? I have another interest in this. I recently purchased a book on WWI. The centenary is coming up in 2014 and there is a desire to get our WWI articles in good shape before then. I intend to use the book extensively but I am anxious about what is acceptable. Bodnotbod

4 4

Lobbyists and Wikipedia (again)
by Sam Blacketer 08 Dec '11

08 Dec '11

There's an interesting story leading in the British newspaper the Independent this morning based on an undercover sting of lobbyists Bell Pottinger: "Discussing techniques for managing reputations online, Mr Wilson mentioned a team that could 'sort' Wikipedia. "'We've got all sorts of dark arts,' added Mr Collins. 'I told him [David Wilson] he couldn't put them in the written presentation because it's embarrassing if it gets out.'" http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/caught-on-camera-top-lobbyist… There might be some editors who want to start an immediate investigation to search for the members of this 'team' but I think that would probably be a waste of time which would put suspicion on a large number of innocent editors. It's always possible Bell Pottinger were boasting. What might be better is to stress that any lobbyist seeking to use 'dark arts' to correct inaccurate or unfair Wikipedia articles, or to add properly sourced positive information, is best advised to use OTRS and to provide sources. It seems to me that current policy and guideline pages are much heavier on telling people what not to do and threatening dire consequences, than they are on helping people to help us. -- Sam Blacketer

7 8

Demi Moore BLP name
by arromdee＠rahul.net 06 Dec '11

06 Dec '11

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Demi_Moore Summary: Demi Moore, in a tweet but verified as being her, says that her own birth name is Demi. Wikipedians do not want to use this statement because the "reliable sources" say otherwise.

9 22

Wikipedia, Tintin, and The Amazing Race
by Daniel R. Tobias 05 Dec '11

05 Dec '11

In tonight's episode of The Amazing Race (a US reality show where contestants race around the world solving clues, treasure-hunt style), one of the puzzles for the contestants while they were in Belgium involved the comic strip Tintin. While the host (Phil) explained a little bit about that strip to the TV audience, the images going across the screen included the infobox from the Wikipedia page on Tintin. The puzzle required the contestants to put on costumes and makeup as instructed, and then figure out what characters they were intended to resemble (Thomson and Thompson). At least one of the teams was shown using Wikipedia (at an Internet cafe) as one of their reference sources to find the correct answer (after they had mis-identified themselves as Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton). The judge (dressed as Tintin) accepted any of several names, since the characters in question have different names in different language editions (as itemized on Wikipedia). So, add this million-dollar-prize televised race to the things that people end up relying on Wikipedia for... let's hope the relevant articles aren't vandalized at the time! -- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/

1 0

Reminder: IRC office hours about FeedbackDashboard starting in a few mins
by Steven Walling 04 Dec '11

04 Dec '11

Hi all, As I noted in my previous email and Village Pump (technical) announcements, we're holding an office hours in #wikimedia-office to talk about Special:FeedbackDashboard as a tool for responding to new editors, specifically with the help of the the informal taskforce WP:RESPONSE. Please join us if you're interested. We're starting at 22:00 UTC. -- Steven Walling Community Organizer at Wikimedia Foundation wikimediafoundation.org

1 0

unz.org - new digitization/archiving effort
by Erik Moeller 02 Dec '11

02 Dec '11

Ron Unz, a long-time Wikimedia supporter, alerted me to this personal project that he's been working on for a long time: http://www.unz.org/ It's an archive of periodicals, books, and videos, some of which hosted there, some externally. Examples: http://www.unz.org/Publication/SaturdayRev http://www.unz.org/Publication/Century Timeslice from the outbreak of WWI: http://www.unz.org/Publication/AllArticles?Period=1914aug According to Ron, the system contains almost 400,000 authors and their writings. A couple of examples of author pages: http://www.unz.org/Author/MenckenHL http://www.unz.org/Author/WhartonEdith Ron believes that the copyright situation is clear -- that either it's PD due to age, due to lack of copyright renewal, or that he has permission in some cases via licensing agreements. In any case, there's quite a bit of unambiguously public domain stuff there that I haven't seen digitized elsewhere, and it should be useful as a research library for Wikipedians as well. Cheers, Erik -- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

2 1

OH: "Wikipedia: The Concert"
by Samuel Klein 02 Dec '11

02 Dec '11

Cute: http://toons.mit.edu/index.php?title=News -- Samuel Klein identi.ca:sj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266

2 1

Deployed today: a new way to respond to feedback from other editors
by Steven Walling 01 Dec '11

01 Dec '11

Hi everyone, I wanted to point English Wikipedians to a cool update for the experimental Feedback Dashboard, and invite you all to try it out and come to our IRC office hours this weekend about it. The full details on the Village Pump: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VPT#New_functionality_for_our_first… As far as I am aware, this is the first time that there is a single place on-wiki where you can see new editor feedback appear in real time, filter it based on sentiment, and respond without leaving the page. If you find it interesting, please join our taskforce on this, WP:RESPONSE. Thanks, -- Steven Walling Community Organizer at Wikimedia Foundation wikimediafoundation.org

2 1

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

WikiEN-l December 2011