All: Thanks to those of you who have provided your feedback.
This is your last friendly reminder. If you'd like to share your thoughts and feedback with us about the taxonomy of knowledge gap work, the official deadline for it is 2020-09-30 (Anytime on Earth;). Our team is going to be heads down working on a couple of other projects in the week of October 5. This means, if you wanted to provide feedback to us and you didn't get a chance, you're more than welcome to do so on or before October 11. We're collecting your feedback at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Knowledge_Gaps_Index/Taxonomy#... .
Sam, Thanks for sharing your feedback here and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Knowledge_Gaps_Index/Taxonomy#... . Someone from our team or I will write to you more on the meta page.
Peter, I hope you don't mind if we continue the conversation with Sam on the meta page now that the content is in both places. I see you've started asking questions from SJ there.
Thanks all!
Leila
Leila Zia Head of Research Wikimedia Foundation
On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 11:18 AM Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
Good points. Are these maybe covered in a future stage of the project? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Samuel Klein Sent: 26 September 2020 19:26 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [feedback requested] Taxonomy of knowledge gaps
Thank you Leila -- I appreciate the reflection and the update here. The paper is thorough and methodical in its approach, which makes it easier for me to see a problem (for my own ideas):
I don't see a focus on the primary tremendous *gaps *-- which for content is depth + breadth + freshness, and for contributors is reach, and for readers is reach in much of the world. I do see an excellent discussion of systemic *bias*, but mostly treated as *static* bias of what is there, and less *dynamic* bias of what we exclude or disallow or discourage.
I left detailed feedback on meta https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Knowledge_Gaps_Index/Taxonomy#Alternatives. I would welcome any help in aligning the way I think about this w/ your work (if that's desired). Perhaps best to address there, since it is all about refactoring and may benefit from that. But I am posting the heart of it below for completeness:
=== Here are the first things I think of around coverage gaps. Only the 0th item seems to directly fit the current taxonomy...
- exclusion via lack of awareness, interest, or expertise
- exclusion via deletionism
- exclusion via topic notability norms (including pop culture + current
events) 3) exclusion via source notability + limiting source formats 4) exclusion via license pessimism 5) exclusion via file format (!) and codec pessimism 6) exclusion of dense specialist knowledge via review bottlenecks 7) exclusion via knowledge type [model, dataset, map layer] 8) exclusion / rejection via behavior on the projects 9) exclusion / rejection under 1-4 via differential application of policy
Some of these, like file-format and review-bottleneck exclusion, are primarily technical restrictions. Some of these, like the first ~4 above, are social+regulatory+technical restrictions that could be alleviated with simple tools (including extensions, alternatives, and sandboxes) -- just as nupedia's social restrictions were alleviated w/ the technical solution of a wiki for the drafting stage. And the last two are purely social restrictions, projecting systemic bias in the community of practice onto who joins and what contributions are welcomed. I'd like to see that subset of gaps addressed directly, and not split up across other parts of a taxonomy.
=== Wiki♥, Sam. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe