Hi,
in response to my appointment as Chief Research Officer of the Wikimedia Foundation, I have put together a page describing this role, as well as a potential larger Wikimedia Research Team that I want to form. Please see
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research_Team
for details. To the Board: The proposal is largely unchanged from the version I sent you, but it includes a note about what I call "semi-official titles". I suggest therein that members of the Team can, internally, use certain titles like "WRT Survey Coordinator." Please - and that goes for non-Board members as well ;-) - let me know how you feel about this idea, I think it could help reduce the impression that the "Chief Research Officer" holds special authority over the other members, and generally motivate people to join and work in certain roles.
The page includes a list of individuals I'd like to invite to join the team; if you feel that anyone is missing from that list, please add them. I will extend personal invitations soon, but if you see your name on the list right now, please do indicate if you're interested (just strike through or remove your name if you're not). Of course, if you yourself are interested and not listed there, feel free to add yourself to the list of members right away. There's no application procedure -- we can always deal with problems as a team if there are any.
I'm copying this to wikitech-l, as I want to encourage the developers to take a look at the above page. I want to ensure you that at no point will anyone try to tell volunteers what to do, or what code to accept, and any assignment to developers paid by Wikimedia will have to be made by the Board: the Team only gives recommendations. I also absolutely want to encourage any interested developers to join; if there are any conflict of interest issues, we can deal with them as they arise. I have mainly not listed developers in my list of proposed members because my intuition is that most of them are too busy to get involved, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong on that count.
I'm sure that some of you will be skeptical about the usefulness of a systematic research effort: In the open source world, code is everything and words are often considered meaningless. However, I believe strongly that analysis should precede implementation, and that volunteer development can be combined in useful ways with targeted, task-oriented coding. The Research Team also has other roles, but see the page on Meta for details.
All best,
Erik
On 5/26/05, Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote: [snip]
I'm sure that some of you will be skeptical about the usefulness of a systematic research effort: In the open source world, code is everything and words are often considered meaningless. However, I believe strongly that analysis should precede implementation, and that volunteer development can be combined in useful ways with targeted, task-oriented coding. The Research Team also has other roles, but see the page on Meta for details.
This kind of prioritization is an excellent thing to try and help the projects develop in the way editors want them to develop. The hard part will be gathering feedback in an ordonned way for all languages and all different projects. I suggest the Research team work closely with the developpers team in the first place to gather as much feedback as possible.
I find it indeed important that in the case of paid developpers (which, imho there should be more of) the development needs addressed be that of as many "communities" as possible, so that no project feels left out in the end.
However, in the light of what has been said on the other threads about official positions, I find the use of a logo quite strange. Somehow, the fact that this "research team" should have a "logo" makes it too independant from what I understood the official positions were supposed to be, ie. a part of Wikimedia, and even somehow a part of the board.
If any "recognition" is going to be used, it should be the wikimedia logo, with just a mention of the research team.
Cheers,
Delphine
Delphine:
I find it indeed important that in the case of paid developpers (which, imho there should be more of) the development needs addressed be that of as many "communities" as possible, so that no project feels left out in the end.
That's why I want to organize community meetings as soon as possible, where we will discuss with members of each community the needs of their project.
However, in the light of what has been said on the other threads about official positions, I find the use of a logo quite strange.
The logo says "Research", it can be used by anyone in the Wikimedia context for research-related activities. Note that Jakob placed it on the general [[m:Research]] page as well without being a member of the team.
Erik
Just a quick note:
On 5/26/05, Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
The logo says "Research", it can be used by anyone in the Wikimedia context for research-related activities. Note that Jakob placed it on the general [[m:Research]] page as well without being a member of the team.
That logo is a mutant and must be exterminated.
Sj (2.718281828@gmail.com) [050527 15:50]:
On 5/26/05, Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
The logo says "Research", it can be used by anyone in the Wikimedia context for research-related activities. Note that Jakob placed it on the general [[m:Research]] page as well without being a member of the team.
Just a quick note: That logo is a mutant and must be exterminated.
I was just thinking there was something reminiscent of a [[:en:Dalek]] about it ...
- d.
I am currently doing researches on wikis generally, and wikipedia or jurispedia specifically.
Is the research team only working on the software or are you also studying the impact of wikis, alternate uses, history, etc. ???
Le 27 mai 05 à 02:20, Erik Moeller a écrit :
Delphine:
I find it indeed important that in the case of paid developpers (which, imho there should be more of) the development needs addressed be that of as many "communities" as possible, so that no project feels left out in the end.
That's why I want to organize community meetings as soon as possible, where we will discuss with members of each community the needs of their project.
However, in the light of what has been said on the other threads about official positions, I find the use of a logo quite strange.
The logo says "Research", it can be used by anyone in the Wikimedia context for research-related activities. Note that Jakob placed it on the general [[m:Research]] page as well without being a member of the team.
Erik _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hi, I think the focus (or focii) of the group is yet to be decided. As it says on the page, there will probably be various focus groups working on their points of interest and then coming together at some point in time. Personally, I'm more interested in the psychological/sociological end of Wikipedia, and also Wikiversity, amongst other things. I'm sure if you have your own ideas, they'd be useful in brainstorming the work of the group.
Cormac
On 5/27/05, Jean-Baptiste Soufron jbsoufron@gmail.com wrote:
I am currently doing researches on wikis generally, and wikipedia or jurispedia specifically.
Is the research team only working on the software or are you also studying the impact of wikis, alternate uses, history, etc. ???
Le 27 mai 05 à 02:20, Erik Moeller a écrit :
Delphine:
I find it indeed important that in the case of paid developpers (which, imho there should be more of) the development needs addressed be that of as many "communities" as possible, so that no project feels left out in the end.
That's why I want to organize community meetings as soon as possible, where we will discuss with members of each community the needs of their project.
However, in the light of what has been said on the other threads about official positions, I find the use of a logo quite strange.
The logo says "Research", it can be used by anyone in the Wikimedia context for research-related activities. Note that Jakob placed it on the general [[m:Research]] page as well without being a member of the team.
Erik _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Cormac:
Hi, I think the focus (or focii) of the group is yet to be decided. As it says on the page, there will probably be various focus groups working on their points of interest and then coming together at some point in time.
That's right. Research is too large and diverse a field to be united in a single focus group. On the other hand, all members of the Team should have at least a rough idea of the ongoing activities, and it should be possible to focus as many interested people as possible on a single high priority project that we choose. ("Let's get that single login specification ready by July.")
In the first meeting, we can try to meet both goals by 1. having a general discussion about focus, priorities, etc. 2. splitting into breakaway groups for different topics (could be just two broad ones for now, e.g. "tech" and "sociology") 3. rejoining for synthesis and definition of deliverables.
It goes without saying that nobody will have to sit through all three stages if they're not interested in a particular one.
If this works, we can adopt it as a general principle. I'd like this effort to be as large and as open as possible: a massive, collaborative and well-coordinated research community. The very positive reaction to my initial invitations is a good sign that this could work.
The topics for which we can form groups will depend on the interests of the people participating in any given meeting, so if you want a specific topic to be on the agenda, I suggest you take it upon yourself to make sure that the right people will be present. Invite them to the team. :-)
Someone asked on Meta whether we have a mailing list. I suggest using wikitech-l for now, perhaps with "Research:" in the subject line. If that turns out to cause too much traffic, we'll create our own list.
Again, anyone who is interested in joining this effort or who wants to know more about it should take a look at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research_Team
We're also trying to sort out the date for the first meeting, so if you haven't already, please make an X in the date matrix for your preferred meeting times. (I'll send out direct emails to all members about this as well.)
Best,
Erik
Delphine Ménard wrote:
However, in the light of what has been said on the other threads about official positions, I find the use of a logo quite strange. Somehow, the fact that this "research team" should have a "logo" makes it too independant from what I understood the official positions were supposed to be, ie. a part of Wikimedia, and even somehow a part of the board.
Yes, the logo is, as SJ said, a mutant anyway. :-)
--Jimbo
On 6/4/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Delphine Ménard wrote:
However, in the light of what has been said on the other threads about official positions, I find the use of a logo quite strange. Somehow, the fact that this "research team" should have a "logo" makes it too independant from what I understood the official positions were supposed to be, ie. a part of Wikimedia, and even somehow a part of the board.
Yes, the logo is, as SJ said, a mutant anyway. :-)
--Jimbo
OK, I am fishing this from the dead zone. I just realized my "Erik, please can you get rid of the logo?" sent after Jimbo's comment had been sent to Jimbo only, unfortunately.
I will therefore re-state my point. The research team, as I understand it, is somewhat part of the board. I do not understand, and do not approve, of it having a logo of its own, which tends to give it an independance that I believe it does not have. Official positions are "official", they should just be stated with the Wikimedia logo, to which if need be, can be added the line "Wikimedia research team". The idea as I understood it, was to structure the existing organisation with official positions and teams. If each team has its own little logo, I believe this goal is lost, as the outside world will have to swim in an immense sea of denominations and images and probably never know who to talk to.
If need be, I am ready, (but not willing) to put this to the vote.
Cheers,
Delphine
Let me get this straight.
Today, the French Wikipedia replaced its official logo with a "logo" made of a bunch of flowers, which you designed, which makes no mention of Wikipedia at all, bears no resemblance to the regular logo, and which commemorates the significant event of "the end of spring."
Shortly after announcing this important event on IRC, you unilaterally remove the logo from the research pages (including [[m:Research]], which is not associated with the Network), and then complain to the mailing list about a voluntary association of individuals designing their own logo for internal use.
Is that about right?
As I have explained before, the logo does *not* stand only for the research network. It can be used by anyone in the context of Wikimedia research. At least one individual has put it on their user page, and Jakob Voss put it on the general research page. It does not mention the network at all.
If the issue is that it incorporates parts of the Wikimedia logo design, I'm willing to design a logo that doesn't do so. Everything else should be up to the people working on this project.
Erik
Erik Moeller a écrit:
Let me get this straight.
Today, the French Wikipedia replaced its official logo with a "logo" made of a bunch of flowers, which you designed, which makes no mention of Wikipedia at all, bears no resemblance to the regular logo, and which commemorates the significant event of "the end of spring."
Shortly after announcing this important event on IRC, you unilaterally remove the logo from the research pages (including [[m:Research]], which is not associated with the Network), and then complain to the mailing list about a voluntary association of individuals designing their own logo for internal use.
Is that about right?
No.
First, it is *I* who changed the logo. Not the french wikipedia. Nor notafish. Notafish was not online when it happened, nor aware this change was planned.
The bunch of flowers notafish designed are flowers from her and I. The central part of it is the very flower I offered to *you* during the logo contest... and which is now the heart of the MediaWiki logo.
It is also the wikithanks stamp used on many projects, in some signatures AND is the little recognition sign for Wikimania.
It does not celebrate only the last day of spring.
It celebrates wikilove. A gesture of friendship between two friends. A gesture of peace between two ennemies. It comes jointly with an article on civility.
It also represent the diversity (diversity of flowers from several countries and two authors) as well as collaboration.
-------
Now, as for the second part of your comment, there is no relationship between the french logo and the research team logo. And I might dare remember this is not the first comment made against it. It was already suggested this logo was possibly inappropriate just after you crafted it.
Please, do not spoil the wikilove of the french logo today, which is opposed by no french whatsoever because many understand its significance. These two things, our logo and your logo, have nothing in common. And they should not be mixed.
Thanks.
Anthere
Anthere:
First, it is *I* who changed the logo. Not the french wikipedia. Nor notafish. Notafish was not online when it happened, nor aware this change was planned.
She seemed to be quite happy about it, though.
[#wikimedia 20.06.05 20:42:54] <notafish_> everybody to the French wikipedia [#wikimedia 20.06.05 20:43:04] <notafish_> fr is celebrating the last day of spring :)
It celebrates wikilove. A gesture of friendship between two friends. A gesture of peace between two ennemies. It comes jointly with an article on civility.
The point is that it doesn't even contain the text "Wikipedia". To claim that the Research logo increases confusion externally when you replace the French Wikipedia one with a picture which has no meaning *outside* the community is, well, problematic at least.
Erik
You think *that's* problematic, I get confused just trying to think in French... I can only imagine what it's like being a tasty bunch of flowers in a French field. <champ champ>
On 6/20/05, Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
The point is that it doesn't even contain the text "Wikipedia". To claim that the Research logo increases confusion externally when you replace the French Wikipedia one with a picture which has no meaning *outside* the community is, well, problematic at least.
Hallo,
On 6/21/05, Sj 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
You think *that's* problematic, I get confused just trying to think in French... I can only imagine what it's like being a tasty bunch of flowers in a French field. <champ champ>
Beauchamp?
Anyway, it is temporal, ephemeral, not perpetual so seems to me harmful (quamquam nunc confesso maximus BJADONos ames ... eh, you've known already?), but Research t^Hnetwork logo seems a bit different. Honestly I can't figure an organisation which department or internal team has their own logos and don't use the organisation logo itself. Well, it would help to promote integrity among the member of network, but in my personal opinion not much to promote the entire project (I mean to Wikimedia projects), it would make each team island, not a part of continent in the worse case, and I convince no one doens't long for such end.
Gruss,
On 6/20/05, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
... Honestly I can't figure an organisation which department or internal team has their own logos and don't use the organisation logo itself. ...
I absolutely love the logo. It gives the people who discuss research topics or some sense of community, while keeping it very closely bound to Wikimedia. Indeed, if you read Peopleware by Tom DeMarco (a seminal book on people and team management), he describes an incredibly successful team at a major company (IBM?) that formed its own identity -- dressed alike, had a jargon, etc -- and was tolerated because they did awesome stuff.
With thousands of wikimedians, having a subset of them create a sense of group (or purpose) identity is well worth the trouble. Additionally, any designer will tell you that a consistent graphical language is important in building and maintaining a brand.
-ilya
On 6/20/05, Ilya Haykinson haykinson@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/20/05, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
... Honestly I can't figure an organisation which department or internal team has their own logos and don't use the organisation logo itself. ...
I absolutely love the logo. It gives the people who discuss research
Not just the concept of a logo? You love... that... logo?
Everyone can start dressing alike now. People on the Contingency Team should wear nothing but hunter's orange for the next three months, until the first five-year-plan is safely underway (and under six feet of concrete). And you must refer to your significant others as "mankind's last hope."
With thousands of wikimedians, having a subset of them create a sense of group (or purpose) identity is well worth the trouble.
Right.
Additionally, any designer will tell you that a consistent graphical language is important in building and maintaining a brand.
More reason not to mutate it. Brand is sacred.
SJ
"NEVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD ANYTHING POKE THE PILLSBURY DOUGHBOY BELOW HIS WAIST"
On 6/21/05, Ilya Haykinson haykinson@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/20/05, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
... Honestly I can't figure an organisation which [sic] department or internal team has [sic] their own logos and don't use the organisation logo itself. ...
I absolutely love the logo. It gives the people who discuss research topics or some sense of community, while keeping it very closely bound to Wikimedia.
I don't say the people belong to the network feel it wrong. Or I dare say, the problem would arise, when the are too much fond of it, their "own" logo rather than the logo project entirely.
Indeed, if you read Peopleware by Tom DeMarco (a seminal book on people and team management), he describes an incredibly successful team at a major company (IBM?) that formed its own identity -- dressed alike, had a jargon, etc -- and was tolerated because they did awesome stuff.
You missed the point I'm afraid. I know some argument culture develops within a company and how it helps to build their integrity, but it is not the department logo (it could be a brand logo, but we don't sell a mainframe to anyone), but the company logo. For now, applying to our case, the logo we share is Wikimedia logo, not logos of each team. And the worse, the current logo has visible no sign of relevance to Wikimedia logo.
With thousands of wikimedians, having a subset of them create a sense of group (or purpose) identity is well worth the trouble.
You mightn't think so. The team integrity is over the integrity of project entirely? Even in case it promotes factionalism and gives a sort of cabalistic accent to the team?
Sorry, perhaps you feel I am characterizing too much, but please consider, if I recall correctly, research network goes to the outer world, say, academics and so on, not only a bunch of young computer-freaks. Shortly sober people. And in my foresight when they give a look to a member of network, and find a "network" logo, they won't be able to stop emerging a smile as lovely and temperate as summer's day, if I am not wrong, in this point having a logo is not so a splendid idea.
Additionally, any designer will tell you that a consistent graphical language is important in building and maintaining a brand.
Hiya, now you are thinking "Research Network" as a brand, not the Wikimedia or each project. But what kind of relevance is between "a logo for internal user" and "brand"? Brand is mainly an identity for external if I recall correctly. And on my part it is hard to think your wording a good sign. It seems beyond a sort of noticeboard or subproject for my accadic view
Greeting from "Babylon", translators' noticeboard
Aphaia wrote:
Hallo,
On 6/21/05, Sj 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
You think *that's* problematic, I get confused just trying to think in French... I can only imagine what it's like being a tasty bunch of flowers in a French field. <champ champ>
Beauchamp?
Anyway, it is temporal, ephemeral, not perpetual so seems to me harmful (quamquam nunc confesso maximus BJADONos ames ... eh, you've known already?), but Research t^Hnetwork logo seems a bit different. Honestly I can't figure an organisation which department or internal team has their own logos and don't use the organisation logo itself. Well, it would help to promote integrity among the member of network, but in my personal opinion not much to promote the entire project (I mean to Wikimedia projects), it would make each team island, not a part of continent in the worse case, and I convince no one doens't long for such end.
Gruss,
Hoi, This is such a summery topic this is.. Really.. As to logos, arms are logos in a way, A country has its arms, its provinces have its arms, its cities have its arms. There is no confusion and there has been none for centuries.
I really enjoy the occasional change on the French wikipedia, it is fun. I think it is good that projects have their own logo. Why begrudge the research effort a logo it is as relevant as the project itself and it is only an interesting subject when you consider the weather (hot in Europe)..
Nah, it is not really worth the electrons that push this message or it is because of its amusement value. By the way I do think the research effort will bear us fruit and therefore is relevant and important.
Thanks, GerardM
On 6/20/05, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, the logo is, as SJ said, a mutant anyway. :-)
--Jimbo
OK, I am fishing this from the dead zone. I just realized my "Erik, please can you get rid of the logo?" sent after Jimbo's comment had been sent to Jimbo only, unfortunately.
I wouldn't mind seeing more non-mutant logos around, particularly if they have little to do with other wiki[mp]edia logos. For fun and great justice. I was pleased when the barnstar subproject started multiplying the collection of awardable icons, and when the template subprojects started adding little icons to identify their templates. Anything that improves readability and consistency across a subproject is scalably excellent in my book.
I will therefore re-state my point. The research team, as I understand it, is somewhat part of the board. I do not understand, and do not
As I understand it, the research tea^B^B^Bnetwork is not at all part of the board. Nor is it innately more or less authoritative as a network than any of the less-visible groups that discuss and work on Wikimedia research. However, it is being actively mentored and promoted by Erik, which makes this network more visible, and in ways more effective, than other related networks. None of this has to do with the board.
Erik's research position *is* officially granted by the board -- both a recognition of his interests and work to date, and a request for him to keep on top of research efforts in the community. His own words were that, in light of both this recognition and this burden, he is focusing his effort on this network (rather than other projects of interest); which focus I hope will bear great fruit. But, you know, it's just another project with its own logo dreams.
If you /really/ want to protest, perhaps we should create some more projects with their own logos, just for the design challenge. A Wikimon logo, maybe. Or a [[m:Press Corps]] or [[w:POTD]] logo, to make into stickers for one's camera-bag. Perhaps a [[w:Wikipedia:WikiProject]] logo to spice up the hundreds of wikiproject pages...
+SJ+
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org