On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Laura Hale <laura(a)fanhistory.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki(a)gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> ENWP Pine, 04/05/2013 08:36:
>>
>>> Ironholds, would you be interested in investigating how stewards, global
>>> sysops, and global rollbackers might be helpful in dealing with the spam
>>> problem, especially for small wikis, and what new steps would be useful?
>>>
>>
>> I doubt they need suggestions, they need tools: <
>> https://www.mediawiki.org/**wiki/Admin_tools_development<https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Admin_tools_development>
>> >
>> The question is rather how much they are already helping: botspam,
>> obvious crosswiki vandalism and NOP are mostly handled globally,[1] so
>> local logs can only help assessing what's consuming the local communities
>> time, not what are the true menaces. In worst case, of course, you may even
>> be measuring the "excuses" to block rather than most important problems
>> users were creating (similarly to Al Capone ;) ).
>>
>
> The following is an analysis of the entire block log on English Wikinews.
> It is currently at
> https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/User:LauraHale/Blocks_on_English_Wikinews
>
> *Ironholds wrote a summary of problems on English Wikipedia viewed
> through block logs <http://blog.ironholds.org/?p=31> in late April. This
> is nominally based on that research to the extent that it is inspired by it
> in terms of understanding blocking on English Wikinews.*
>
> As referenced on the WMF research list, the issue of blocking is
> potentially a very big deal for smaller projects. Problems can easily
> overwhelm a small community if there is not an active community patrolling
> recent changes in addition to the content work they are engaging in. For
> English Wikinews, there were 22 active reporters in January 2013<http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikinews/EN/TablesWikipediansEditsGt5.htm>.
> (This is tiny when SUL is a larger contributor to English Wikinews having
> 720,753 total registered users of which 0.00069% were active in January.)
> At the same time, there were 64 blocks made that month. 39 of these blocks
> were for spam. English Wikinews is one of the fortunate smaller projects:
> We have two local Check Users <https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:CU>who respond quickly to problems. We generally have at least one admin awake
> and monitoring recent changes at any given time. We have global CUs who can
> and sometimes come in and block the big problems. Thus, we can deal with
> the automated problem quite easily.
>
> Since English Wikinews has opened and 27 April 2013, there have been
> 15,105 un/blocks. The following is based on the complete block log. On the
> project, 4 types of block actions exist on English Wikinews: block,
> unblock, log action removed and changed block settings for. They all appear
> in the same block log, thus the 15,105 number is not total blocks but total
> block related action. (If you harass a user, get blocked for a week for it,
> get unblocked after promising to behave, get reblocked and then have your
> block extended, there are three distinct actions. If you do that with an
> offensive user name, the log action may be hidden, which is a fourth type
> of action.)
>
> Since 2005, 99 different people have taken an administrative blocking
> action on English Wikinews. While there are currently only 36 admins on
> English Wikinews, the number used to be higher and local policy is if you
> do not use your admin privileges, you lose them. This is to prevent
> potential abuse and to make sure all admins are aware of current policy in
> order to prevent wheel-warring and other potentially damaging things to the
> community. Amgine has blocked the most users on the project with 7162 block
> related actions. Brian McNeil is second with 1522 related block actions. He
> has been less active in the past 18 months or so. Cirt is third with 723.
> Cirt is our most active local Check User. Pi zero is fourth with 503 block
> related administrative actions. Tempodivalse, who is no longer involved
> with the project, rounds out the top five with 487 block related
> administrative actions. Amongst the next five administrators with blocks,
> only one is actively involved on the administrator side, Cspurrier, who is
> also a Check User who is ranked seventh for total administrator block
> related actions with 343.
>
> Who is getting blocked? There are 14,815 total entries identified to
> specific accounts where an administrative blocking account was acted upon
> the account, of which there were 12,643 unique accounts where
> administrative blocking related action was taken connected to the account.
> This means that there are 1,100 accounts with 2 or more administrative
> blocked related actions taken regarding them.
>
This is somewhat ambiguous; "2 or more blocked-related actions" could mean
either multiple blocks or a single unblock.
> There were a number of people with large numbers of block related
> administrator actions taken in relation to the account, including
> Neutralizer with 71, Simeon with 39, Mrmiscellanious with 35, PVJ59 with
> 23, DragonFire1024 with 17, Edbrown05 with 17, Amgine with 16, Brian
> McNeil, NGerda and International with 13 each, StrangerInParadise with 12,
> and 203.122.254.26, 207.248.240.118, 67.52.164.132, 71.197.8.9,
> 76.247.222.101, Harej, Ironiridis and MyName with 10 each. The total blocks
> by individual is a bit of a confirmation bias towards throw away
> spam/vandalism related accounts. It also suggests possibly a low tolerance
> for shenanigans on the project, with little tolerance for giving people who
> do not demonstrate they are there for the project to have multiple
> opportunities to learn until you realize that over half the total blocks
> are for open proxies.
>
Not necessarily; if there was little tolerance, some of those blocks would
be indefinite, and presumably the users would not need multiple blocks :).
> How long are accounts getting blocked for? There are 150 different block
> lengths, though 47 of these are changes in block ending. This leaves only
> 103 total different block lengths. Most blocks are indefinite, accounting
> for 10,618 of all blocks. If you take the 7,926 open proxy related blocks
> in 2006 by Amgine out of the equation, this number looks much smaller at
> 2,692. Still, the next most common block length is 24 hours with 1,176.
> After this, there are 462 blocks for one week. There were 340 blocks for
> one day and 241 blocks for one year. Experienced Wikinews administrators
> are generally able to identify the obvious spammers, copyright violators
> and trolls. For the past two years after WN:Never assume<https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Never_assume>became policy, there is less of need on the project to assume good faith on
> a number of these obvious spam accounts and obnoxious user names to see
> what they are doing.
>
I don't recall AGF ever requiring that, but frankly (as an aside) I find
such a policy highly disturbing. Still, projects can do what they want.
> Pro-active blocking based on CU reports becomes a much more feasible
> options and reduces long term administrator burden by needing to monitor
> this behavior.
> <https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/File:Block_actions_on_English_Wikinews.png>
> Total block actions by year on English Wikinews as of 27 April 2013-
>
> When did the vast majority of blocks take place? 2006 when Amgine did a
> mass indefinite block on open proxies. That year, there were 7926 blocks.
> The second and third largest block years book ended that year, and includes
> the year the project was founded. Since then, the total blocks by year,
> with the exception of 2011 when there was a failed project fork, the block
> totals have remained relatively consistent and 2013 seems like it will hold
> to the same pattern of between 800 and 1000 blocks by the end of the year.
>
> The thought that indefinite and longer blocks are on the rise when by year
> block lengths are looked at. The table below gives an idea of some of this
> for the block periods with at least 5 or more blocks in a year and with at
> least 5 years with at least one block of that length.
> Block lengths by year Block length/New block end date 2005 2006 2007 2008
> 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 1 day 391 259 147 128 50 69 47 63 22 1 day and
> 7 hours 0 3 7 8 7 5 0 0 0 1 hour 6 29 47 19 7 10 4 2 6 1 minute 1 4 0 8
> 0 1 0 0 0 1 week 50 62 24 37 51 75 38 87 38 10 minutes 6 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 12
> hours 3 6 2 6 1 21 15 9 2 14 days 18 6 3 3 5 6 1 0 0 15 minutes 3 12 8 9
> 7 4 3 0 0 Indefinite 222 7102 760 397 656 434 408 470 169 181 days 9 3 4
> 2 0 12 3 2 1 2 hours 21 52 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 3 days 98 39 14 26 14 20 20 33
> 8 3 hours 3 22 61 20 4 16 6 4 1 3 years, 6 hours, 32 minutes and 24
> seconds 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 7 0 90 days 4 4 2 12 9 22 23 34 15 365 days 7 6 1
> 9 3 10 22 168 15 2 days 2 31 24 40 25 26 13 11 6 31 days 61 31 5 10 12
> 10 5 2 1 30 minutes 2 6 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 4 hours 1 13 6 0 0 1 0 0 0
>
>
> Out of a total of 15,104 blocks, reasons were identified for 14,473 of
> these blocks using the drop down categories as a guide. These categories
> include Open proxy, Vandalism, spam, Abusing multiple accounts, Unblock,
> Unacceptable username, Harassment, Not listed, Inserting nonsense/gibberish
> into pages, Bot, 3RR, Unknown and Copyright violation. Three groups should
> be taken out to better understand reasons why people are blocked including
> Unblock, Not listed (which includes reasons like "Stop being an arse!"),
> and Unknown (where it was also hard to identify the block rationale). These
> groups had 806, 181 and 629 total blocks respectively. Of the remaining
> block reasons, open proxy is the most common block rationale with 7,867
> total blocks. The next four largest categories are largely related in that
> they are obvious problems by people not invested in working towards the
> goal of publish news: 2,213 vandalism related blocks, 1,331 spam related
> blocks, 991 abuse of multiple accounts/sockpuppeting blocks and 440 blocks
> for unacceptable user names. After this, we begin to get to more community
> centric internal related blocks with 248 blocks for harassment. The back to
> non-community related blocks with 175 for Inserting nonsense/gibberish into
> pages, and 130 for running unauthorized bots. A community centric problem
> with 77 blocks for 3RR, with 14 copyright violation related blocks rounding
> out block reasons.
>
> Ironholds post strongly suggests that spam is a rising problem on English
> Wikipedia.
>
Not really. It suggests that more people are being blocked for spam. This
could mean that spam is a rising problem, or it could mean that the regexes
I used are inaccurate, or it could mean that spam levels have remained
constant but our tolerance has reduced, or it could mean that there are odd
inconsistencies in activity that are masked by a year-by-year analysis (I'm
breaking it down month-by-month to track these). I'd also note that our
studies are not really comparable; mine was exclusively on indefinite
blocks that have not been reversed.
> While our totals suggest vandalism is a bigger problem, when block reasons
> are broken down by year, spam appears to be one of the biggest problems on
> English Wikinews. Year to April 27, there were 5 times more blocks for spam
> than any other blocking category on English Wikinews with 182. Inserting
> nonsense/gibberish into pages was second with 34. This is often connected
> to spam as it is bot generated garbage that lacks links. Vandalism and sock
> puppetry are much smaller comparative problems. Vandalism in the past used
> to be much, much easier but flagged revisions and an inability to edit past
> news (facts do not cease to be facts, but news ceases to be news. old news
> stories are archived and edit protected) makes it very difficult for random
> vandalism to occur. Instead, what does tend to get vandalized are user
> pages and user talk pages.
>
>
> <https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/File:English_Wikinews_blocks_by_year.png>
> English Wikinews block by year
>
> Changes in archiving policies may explain why 3RR, never a huge problem on
> Wikinews, ceased to be a problem by 2009 as the project has not had a 3RR
> block since 2008. Beyond that, the project maturing and a review process
> beginning to get formulated which assisted the community in working towards
> a shared goal may have also stopped the edit warring. Open proxy related
> blocks have also dropped down, with only 1 so far in 2013. Copyright
> violation related blocks have always been small, and are not a major
> problem. There has been a slight increase over time but they do not
> represent a significant problem in terms of scale. Harassment of users has
> declined as a blocking reason, with the drop off appearing to correlate
> some with the creation of the failed fork. This suggests that conflict
> decreased and left a core group of users less likely to engage in on
> English Wikinews conflict. Harassment block numbers dropping also correlate
> to unblock (0.59) with unblocks having dropped off after the review process
> began to be formulated.
>
> Overall, the blocks on Wikinews reflect a community initially formulating
> itself, creating policies, shifts in participation and with most blocks now
> being longer and for activities that do not relate to community activities
> around the shared goal of publishing news stories.
>
I'm concerned that you're undertaking an analysis of blocks by year, and
attempting to draw from that useful information about shifts in community
attention, without any reference to user activity. To put it another way;
if you have 3,000 blocks in 2006, and 5,000 in 2007, it's certainly useful
to take both of those groups and say 'okay, what are the differences'. But
the substantial difference in numbers means that all you can say is 'there
are more blocks of TypeX' not 'blocks of TypeX are becoming more/less of a
problem when we look at our incoming users'. This is particularly
problematic without reference to things like incoming newcomers and
registration logs; it could be there are more/less blocks in a certain area
not because the situation is getting worse/better, but because there have
been shifts in activity levels and incoming newcomers. I'd suggest
analysing a normalised sample rather than relying solely on the net block
action numbers.
> --
> twitter: purplepopple
> blog: ozziesport.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
"We regularly see requests to survey the most active Wikipedians about
their motivations to edit."
As I am in the top 100 most active Wikipedians, unless I am an outlier
for some reason, very few of those projects come to fruition, as I get
no more than 1-2 requests a year, at most.
"See this proposal[1] for an example of a study that was halted in
review due to the disruption it would have caused."
So, they would ask 500 people to take part in a 10 minute survey. A bit
long, but... so what? I expect they'd get a response ratio of about
10%, so they should contact the Top 5000. Still not seeing a problem.
Those who don't want, don't take part in the survey. It would be nice if
the researchers promised to do something constructive like improve
Wikipedia content, give out random prizes to contributors, or such to
"give back" to the community. Perhaps an idea to add to best practices,
but... where's that disruption? What am I missing?
--
Piotr Konieczny, PhD
http://hanyang.academia.edu/PiotrKoniecznyhttp://scholar.google.com/citations?user=gdV8_AEAAAAJhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Piotrus
On 7/19/2014 02:59, Aaron Halfaker wrote:
>
> Does anyone know whether this is actually a problem with editors
> these days?
>
>
> Yes. We regularly see requests to survey the most active Wikipedians
> about their motivations to edit. These requests are problematic for
> some very obvious reasons. See this proposal[1] for an example of a
> study that was halted in review due to the disruption it would have
> caused.
>
> The projects I do as a qualitative researcher tend to be
> exploratory. I will interview people on skype, for example, about
> their work on particular articles before I know that I have a project.
>
> Do you document your study on wiki and ask for feedback about
> disruption before moving forward? Regardless of the process around
> it, I think we might all agree that is good behavior for any research
> activity. This might be obvious to you as someone who has been doing
> ethnographic work in Wikimedia communities for a long time, but it is
> apprently less obvious to more junior wiki researchers.
>
> This good-faith documentation and discussion describes the whole RCom
> subject recruitment process. You refer to RCom as "heavy weight", but
> as far as I can tell, the weight is entirely on the RCom coordinator
> -- a burden I'll gladly accept to help good research take place
> without disruption. Researchers should have already documented their
> research and prepared themselves to discuss the work with their
> subjects before they arrive.
>
> I don't know of a single study that has passed stalled in RCom's
> process that has resulted in substantial disruption or stalled for
> more than two weeks. I welcome you to provide counter examples.
>
> I don't think [the CSCW workshop proposal] addresses the issue
> unless there's something I'm missing (like an invitation, for example!
>
>
> One of the ways that researchers can be supported is through groups
> that help them socialize their research activities with community
> members (and minimize disruption for community members). Despite the
> tone of this conversation, we have been highly successful in this regard.
>
> I think it would be nice if you could offer an invitation to the
> researchers on this list
>
>
> That's the plan. We're just getting to a point where we have a solid
> idea of what we want to accomplish. An announcement will come soon.
>
> Basically, I think that we need to reassess what kinds of problems
> are the most important ones right now that we want to solve rather
> than resuscitating a process that was designed to address a
> specific type of problem that was prevalent a long time ago
>
>
> As I pointed out previously, the subject recruitment process is alive
> and does not need to be "resuscitated ". It is also solving a
> relevant problem. I welcome Lane Rasberry (if he has time) to share
> his substantial concerns about undocumented, undiscussed research
> taking place on-wiki.
>
> 1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Online_knowledge_sharing
> 2. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Uncategorized_support_requests
>
> -Aaron
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 1:27 AM, Heather Ford <hfordsa(a)gmail.com
> <mailto:hfordsa@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> On 17 July 2014 22:37, Jonathan Morgan <jmorgan(a)wikimedia.org
> <mailto:jmorgan@wikimedia.org>> wrote:
>
> First, I wanted to highlight the important issue that Heather
> raises here, because although it's a separate issue, it's an
> important one:
>
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 2:38 AM, Heather Ford
> <hfordsa(a)gmail.com <mailto:hfordsa@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> ...
>
>
> One immediate requirement that I've been talking to others
> about is finding ways of making the case to the WMF as a
> group of researchers for the anonymization of country
> level data, for example. I've spoken to a few researchers
> (and I myself made a request about a year ago that hasn't
> been responded to) and it seems like some work is required
> by the foundation to do this anonymisation but that there
> are a few of us who would be really keen to use this data
> to produce research very valuable to Wikipedia -
> especially from smaller language versions/developing
> countries. Having an official process that assesses how
> worthwhile this investment of time would be to the
> Foundation would be a great idea, I think, but right now
> there seems to be a general focus on the research that the
> Foundation does itself rather than enabling researchers
> outside. I know how busy Aaron and Dario (and others in
> the team) are so perhaps this requires a new position to
> coordinate between researchers and Foundation resources?
>
>
> As a community-run group, RCOM doesn't have any role in making
> non-public data available to researchers. However, Aaron and I
> are putting together a proposal for a workshop
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:CSCW15_workshop>
> that would address issues like this. That's work we're doing
> in an official capacity, as opposed to the RCOM work, which is
> volunteer.
>
>
> Jonathan, it looks like this will be a great workshop and I think
> CSCW is a great venue! but I don't think it addresses the issue
> unless there's something I'm missing (like an invitation, for
> example! ;) I see that the workshop is forward-facing but its aim
> seems to be to work with a bunch of different communities like
> Reddit and GalaxyZoo. What we need are better channels as
> Wikipedia researchers to communicate our needs as researchers
> operating outside the WMF. And preferably in a way that doesn't
> require us to have to travel to Canada to a workshop to do it!
>
> And, I offered it as a joke but it reminds me of a small, subtle
> point, I think it would be nice if you could offer an invitation
> to the researchers on this list to join the workshop and/or
> workshop planning when you advertise the work you're doing on
> this. I know it's a wiki and anyone could probably join, but I
> feel like there is enormous possibility for the group represented
> here to feel involved and recognised, and I, for one, would like
> to be invited sometimes.. to the fun stuff, that is, not just the
> hard, arduous stuff :)
>
> Best,
> Heather.
>
>
> On RCOM more generally... I think clarifying the role of the
> committee, and getting a larger and more diverse set of people
> involved, might help make RCOM work. But as Aaron can attest,
> it is difficult to get people to agree on what RCOMs role
> should be, let alone get them to work for RCOM.
>
> I've been involved with RCOM for a while, albeit not very
> actively. Unfortunately, I think that the fact that the only
> people who "review" requests /happen to be*/ WMF staffers
> contributes to confusion about RCOM's role and it's authority.
> IMO, if RCOM or any other subject recruitment review process
> is to succeed, we need:
>
> * more wiki-researchers who are willing to regularly
> participate in both peer review /and/ in developing better
> process guidelines and standards (it's really just Aaron
> right now)
> * more /Wikipedians/ who are willing to do the same
> * some degree of buy-in from the Wikimedia community as a
> whole. RCOM needs legitimacy. But where, and from whom?
> Subject recruitment is a global concern, but the proposed
> subject recruitment process is focused on en-wiki (mostly
> because that's where most of the relevant research
> activities /that we are aware of/ are happening). How to
> make RCOM more global?
>
> RCOM is in a tough spot right now. We can't force researchers
> to submit their proposals, or abide by the
> suggestions/recommendations/decisions/whatever that result
> from their review. But because we /look like /an official
> body, it's easy to blame us for failing to prevent disruptive
> research (if you're a community member), for "rubber stamping"
> research that we like (ditto), or for drowning research in red
> tape (if you're a wiki-researcher).
>
>
> - J
>
> *we were wiki-researchers first!
>
>
> Heather Ford
> Oxford Internet Institute <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk>
> Doctoral Programme
> EthnographyMatters <http://ethnographymatters.net> |
> Oxford Digital Ethnography Group
> <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=115>
> http://hblog.org <http://hblog.org/> | @hfordsa
> <http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa>
>
>
>
>
> On 17 July 2014 08:49, Kerry Raymond
> <kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com <mailto:kerry.raymond@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> Yes, I meant the community/communities of WMF. But the
> authority of the community derives from WMF, which
> chooses to delegate such matters. I think that
> “advise” is a good word to use.
>
> Kerry
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*Amir E. Aharoni
> [mailto:amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il
> <mailto:amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il>]
> *Sent:* Thursday, 17 July 2014 5:37 PM
> *To:* kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com
> <mailto:kerry.raymond@gmail.com>; Research into
> Wikimedia content and communities
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Wiki-research-l] discussion about
> wikipedia surveys
>
> > WMF does not "own" me as a contributor; it does not
> decide who can and cannot recruit me for whatever
> purposes.
>
> I don't think that it really should be about WMF. The
> WMF shouldn't enforce anything. The community can
> formulate good practices for researchers and _advise_
> community members not to cooperate with researchers
> who don't follow these practices. Not much more is needed.
>
>
>
> --
> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
> http://aharoni.wordpress.com
> “We're living in pieces,
> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
>
> 2014-07-17 8:24 GMT+03:00 Kerry Raymond
> <kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com
> <mailto:kerry.raymond@gmail.com>>:
>
> Just saying here what I already put on the Talk page:
>
> I am a little bothered by the opening sentence
> "This page documents the process that researchers
> must follow before asking Wikipedia contributors
> to participate in research studies such as
> surveys, interviews and experiments."
>
> WMF does not "own" me as a contributor; it does
> not decide who can and cannot recruit me for
> whatever purposes. What WMF does own is its
> communication channels to me as a contributor and
> WMF has a right to control what occurs on those
> channels. Also I think WMF probably should be
> concerned about both its readers and its
> contributors being recruited through its channels
> (as either might be being recruited). I think this
> distinction should be made, e.g.
>
> "This page documents the process that researchers
> must follow if they wish to use Wikipedia's
> (WMF's?) communication channels to recruit people
> to participate in research studies such as
> surveys, interviews and experiments. Communication
> channels include its mailing lists, its Project
> pages, Talk pages, and User Talk pages [and
> whatever else I've forgotten]."
>
> If researchers want to recruit WPians via non-WMF
> means, I don’t think it’s any business of WMF’s.
> An example might be a researcher who wanted to
> contact WPians via chapters or thorgs; I would
> leave it for the chapter/thorg to decide if they
> wanted to assist the researcher via their
> communication channels.
>
> Of course, the practical reality of it is that
> some researchers (oblivious of WMF’s concerns in
> relation to recruitment of WPians to research
> projects) will simply use WMF’s channels without
> asking nicely first. Obviously we can remove such
> requests on-wiki and follow up any email requests
> with the commentary that this was not an approved
> request. In my category of [whatever else I’ve
> forgotten], I guess there are things like Facebook
> groups and any other social media presence.
>
> Also to be practical, if WMF is to have a process
> to vet research surveys, I think it has to be
> sufficiently fast and not be overly demanding to
> avoid the possibility of the researcher giving up
> (“too hard to deal with these people”) and simply
> spamming email, project pages, social media in the
> hope of recruiting some participants regardless.
> That is, if we make it too slow/hard to do the
> right thing, we effectively encourage doing the
> wrong thing. Also, what value-add can we give them
> to reward those who do the right thing? It’s nice
> to have a carrot as well as a stick when it comes
> to onerous processes J
>
> Because of the criticism of “not giving back”,
> could we perhaps do things to try to make the
> researcher feel part of the community to make
> “giving back” more likely? For example, could we
> give them a slot every now and again to talk about
> their project in the R&D Showcase? Encourage them
> to be on this mailing list. Are we at a point
> where it might make sense to organise a Wikipedia
> research conference to help build a research
> community? Just thinking aloud here …
>
> Kerry
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org
> <mailto:wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org>
> [mailto:wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org>]
> *On Behalf Of *Aaron Halfaker
> *Sent:* Thursday, 17 July 2014 6:59 AM
> *To:* Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> *Subject:* Re: [Wiki-research-l] discussion about
> wikipedia surveys
>
> RCOM review is still alive and looking for new
> reviewers (really, coordinators). Researchers can
> be directed to me or Dario
> (dtaraborelli(a)wikimedia.org
> <mailto:dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org>) to be
> assigned a reviewer. There is also a proposed
> policy on enwiki that could use some eyeballs:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Research_recruitment
>
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Federico Leva
> (Nemo) <nemowiki(a)gmail.com
> <mailto:nemowiki@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> phoebe ayers, 16/07/2014 19:21:
>
> > (Personally, I think the answer should be to
> resuscitate RCOM, but
> > that's easy to say and harder to do!)
>
> IMHO in the meanwhile the most useful thing folks
> can do is subscribing
> to the feed of new research pages:
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:NewPages&feed=atom&hid…>
> It's easier to build a functioning RCOM out of an
> active community of
> "reviewers", than the other way round.
>
> Nemo
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> <mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> <mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> <mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> <mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jonathan T. Morgan
> Learning Strategist
> Wikimedia Foundation
> User:Jmorgan (WMF)
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_%28WMF%29>
> jmorgan(a)wikimedia.org <mailto:jmorgan@wikimedia.org>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> <mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> <mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
> Does anyone know whether this is actually a problem with editors these
> days?
Yes. We regularly see requests to survey the most active Wikipedians about
their motivations to edit. These requests are problematic for some very
obvious reasons. See this proposal[1] for an example of a study that was
halted in review due to the disruption it would have caused.
The projects I do as a qualitative researcher tend to be exploratory. I
> will interview people on skype, for example, about their work on particular
> articles before I know that I have a project.
Do you document your study on wiki and ask for feedback about disruption
before moving forward? Regardless of the process around it, I think we
might all agree that is good behavior for any research activity. This
might be obvious to you as someone who has been doing ethnographic work in
Wikimedia communities for a long time, but it is apprently less obvious to
more junior wiki researchers.
This good-faith documentation and discussion describes the whole RCom
subject recruitment process. You refer to RCom as "heavy weight", but as
far as I can tell, the weight is entirely on the RCom coordinator -- a
burden I'll gladly accept to help good research take place without
disruption. Researchers should have already documented their research and
prepared themselves to discuss the work with their subjects before they
arrive.
I don't know of a single study that has passed stalled in RCom's process
that has resulted in substantial disruption or stalled for more than two
weeks. I welcome you to provide counter examples.
I don't think [the CSCW workshop proposal] addresses the issue unless
> there's something I'm missing (like an invitation, for example!
One of the ways that researchers can be supported is through groups that
help them socialize their research activities with community members (and
minimize disruption for community members). Despite the tone of this
conversation, we have been highly successful in this regard.
I think it would be nice if you could offer an invitation to the
> researchers on this list
That's the plan. We're just getting to a point where we have a solid idea
of what we want to accomplish. An announcement will come soon.
Basically, I think that we need to reassess what kinds of problems are the
> most important ones right now that we want to solve rather than
> resuscitating a process that was designed to address a specific type of
> problem that was prevalent a long time ago
As I pointed out previously, the subject recruitment process is alive and
does not need to be "resuscitated ". It is also solving a relevant
problem. I welcome Lane Rasberry (if he has time) to share his substantial
concerns about undocumented, undiscussed research taking place on-wiki.
1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Online_knowledge_sharing
2. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Uncategorized_support_requests
-Aaron
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 1:27 AM, Heather Ford <hfordsa(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 17 July 2014 22:37, Jonathan Morgan <jmorgan(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>> First, I wanted to highlight the important issue that Heather raises
>> here, because although it's a separate issue, it's an important one:
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 2:38 AM, Heather Ford <hfordsa(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>> One immediate requirement that I've been talking to others about is
>>> finding ways of making the case to the WMF as a group of researchers for
>>> the anonymization of country level data, for example. I've spoken to a few
>>> researchers (and I myself made a request about a year ago that hasn't been
>>> responded to) and it seems like some work is required by the foundation to
>>> do this anonymisation but that there are a few of us who would be really
>>> keen to use this data to produce research very valuable to Wikipedia -
>>> especially from smaller language versions/developing countries. Having an
>>> official process that assesses how worthwhile this investment of time would
>>> be to the Foundation would be a great idea, I think, but right now there
>>> seems to be a general focus on the research that the Foundation does itself
>>> rather than enabling researchers outside. I know how busy Aaron and Dario
>>> (and others in the team) are so perhaps this requires a new position to
>>> coordinate between researchers and Foundation resources?
>>>
>>
>> As a community-run group, RCOM doesn't have any role in making non-public
>> data available to researchers. However, Aaron and I are putting together a
>> proposal for a workshop
>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:CSCW15_workshop> that would
>> address issues like this. That's work we're doing in an official capacity,
>> as opposed to the RCOM work, which is volunteer.
>>
>
> Jonathan, it looks like this will be a great workshop and I think CSCW is
> a great venue! but I don't think it addresses the issue unless there's
> something I'm missing (like an invitation, for example! ;) I see that the
> workshop is forward-facing but its aim seems to be to work with a bunch of
> different communities like Reddit and GalaxyZoo. What we need are better
> channels as Wikipedia researchers to communicate our needs as researchers
> operating outside the WMF. And preferably in a way that doesn't require us
> to have to travel to Canada to a workshop to do it!
>
> And, I offered it as a joke but it reminds me of a small, subtle point, I
> think it would be nice if you could offer an invitation to the researchers
> on this list to join the workshop and/or workshop planning when you
> advertise the work you're doing on this. I know it's a wiki and anyone
> could probably join, but I feel like there is enormous possibility for the
> group represented here to feel involved and recognised, and I, for one,
> would like to be invited sometimes.. to the fun stuff, that is, not just
> the hard, arduous stuff :)
>
> Best,
> Heather.
>
>
>
>>
>> On RCOM more generally... I think clarifying the role of the committee,
>> and getting a larger and more diverse set of people involved, might help
>> make RCOM work. But as Aaron can attest, it is difficult to get people to
>> agree on what RCOMs role should be, let alone get them to work for RCOM.
>>
>> I've been involved with RCOM for a while, albeit not very actively.
>> Unfortunately, I think that the fact that the only people who "review"
>> requests *happen to be** WMF staffers contributes to confusion about
>> RCOM's role and it's authority. IMO, if RCOM or any other subject
>> recruitment review process is to succeed, we need:
>>
>> - more wiki-researchers who are willing to regularly participate in
>> both peer review *and* in developing better process guidelines and
>> standards (it's really just Aaron right now)
>> - more *Wikipedians* who are willing to do the same
>> - some degree of buy-in from the Wikimedia community as a whole. RCOM
>> needs legitimacy. But where, and from whom? Subject recruitment is a global
>> concern, but the proposed subject recruitment process is focused on en-wiki
>> (mostly because that's where most of the relevant research activities *that
>> we are aware of* are happening). How to make RCOM more global?
>>
>> RCOM is in a tough spot right now. We can't force researchers to submit
>> their proposals, or abide by the
>> suggestions/recommendations/decisions/whatever that result from their
>> review. But because we *look like *an official body, it's easy to blame
>> us for failing to prevent disruptive research (if you're a community
>> member), for "rubber stamping" research that we like (ditto), or for
>> drowning research in red tape (if you're a wiki-researcher).
>>
>>
>> - J
>>
>> *we were wiki-researchers first!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Heather Ford
>>> Oxford Internet Institute <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk> Doctoral Programme
>>> EthnographyMatters <http://ethnographymatters.net> | Oxford Digital
>>> Ethnography Group <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=115>
>>> http://hblog.org | @hfordsa <http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 17 July 2014 08:49, Kerry Raymond <kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, I meant the community/communities of WMF. But the authority of
>>>> the community derives from WMF, which chooses to delegate such matters. I
>>>> think that “advise” is a good word to use.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kerry
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> *From:* Amir E. Aharoni [mailto:amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il]
>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, 17 July 2014 5:37 PM
>>>> *To:* kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com; Research into Wikimedia content and
>>>> communities
>>>>
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Wiki-research-l] discussion about wikipedia surveys
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > WMF does not "own" me as a contributor; it does not decide who can
>>>> and cannot recruit me for whatever purposes.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think that it really should be about WMF. The WMF shouldn't
>>>> enforce anything. The community can formulate good practices for
>>>> researchers and _advise_ community members not to cooperate with
>>>> researchers who don't follow these practices. Not much more is needed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
>>>> http://aharoni.wordpress.com
>>>> “We're living in pieces,
>>>> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2014-07-17 8:24 GMT+03:00 Kerry Raymond <kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>> Just saying here what I already put on the Talk page:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am a little bothered by the opening sentence "This page documents the
>>>> process that researchers must follow before asking Wikipedia contributors
>>>> to participate in research studies such as surveys, interviews and
>>>> experiments."
>>>>
>>>> WMF does not "own" me as a contributor; it does not decide who can and
>>>> cannot recruit me for whatever purposes. What WMF does own is its
>>>> communication channels to me as a contributor and WMF has a right to
>>>> control what occurs on those channels. Also I think WMF probably should be
>>>> concerned about both its readers and its contributors being recruited
>>>> through its channels (as either might be being recruited). I think this
>>>> distinction should be made, e.g.
>>>>
>>>> "This page documents the process that researchers must follow if they
>>>> wish to use Wikipedia's (WMF's?) communication channels to recruit people
>>>> to participate in research studies such as surveys, interviews and
>>>> experiments. Communication channels include its mailing lists, its Project
>>>> pages, Talk pages, and User Talk pages [and whatever else I've forgotten]."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If researchers want to recruit WPians via non-WMF means, I don’t think
>>>> it’s any business of WMF’s. An example might be a researcher who wanted to
>>>> contact WPians via chapters or thorgs; I would leave it for the
>>>> chapter/thorg to decide if they wanted to assist the researcher via their
>>>> communication channels.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course, the practical reality of it is that some researchers
>>>> (oblivious of WMF’s concerns in relation to recruitment of WPians to
>>>> research projects) will simply use WMF’s channels without asking nicely
>>>> first. Obviously we can remove such requests on-wiki and follow up any
>>>> email requests with the commentary that this was not an approved request.
>>>> In my category of [whatever else I’ve forgotten], I guess there are things
>>>> like Facebook groups and any other social media presence.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Also to be practical, if WMF is to have a process to vet research
>>>> surveys, I think it has to be sufficiently fast and not be overly demanding
>>>> to avoid the possibility of the researcher giving up (“too hard to deal
>>>> with these people”) and simply spamming email, project pages, social media
>>>> in the hope of recruiting some participants regardless. That is, if we make
>>>> it too slow/hard to do the right thing, we effectively encourage doing the
>>>> wrong thing. Also, what value-add can we give them to reward those who do
>>>> the right thing? It’s nice to have a carrot as well as a stick when it
>>>> comes to onerous processes J
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because of the criticism of “not giving back”, could we perhaps do
>>>> things to try to make the researcher feel part of the community to make
>>>> “giving back” more likely? For example, could we give them a slot every now
>>>> and again to talk about their project in the R&D Showcase? Encourage them
>>>> to be on this mailing list. Are we at a point where it might make sense to
>>>> organise a Wikipedia research conference to help build a research
>>>> community? Just thinking aloud here …
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kerry
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> *From:* wiki-research-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:
>>>> wiki-research-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of *Aaron
>>>> Halfaker
>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, 17 July 2014 6:59 AM
>>>> *To:* Research into Wikimedia content and communities
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Wiki-research-l] discussion about wikipedia surveys
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> RCOM review is still alive and looking for new reviewers (really,
>>>> coordinators). Researchers can be directed to me or Dario (
>>>> dtaraborelli(a)wikimedia.org) to be assigned a reviewer. There is also
>>>> a proposed policy on enwiki that could use some eyeballs:
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Research_recruitment
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <
>>>> nemowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> phoebe ayers, 16/07/2014 19:21:
>>>>
>>>> > (Personally, I think the answer should be to resuscitate RCOM, but
>>>> > that's easy to say and harder to do!)
>>>>
>>>> IMHO in the meanwhile the most useful thing folks can do is subscribing
>>>> to the feed of new research pages:
>>>> <
>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:NewPages&feed=atom&hid…
>>>> >
>>>> It's easier to build a functioning RCOM out of an active community of
>>>> "reviewers", than the other way round.
>>>>
>>>> Nemo
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>>> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>>> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>>> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jonathan T. Morgan
>> Learning Strategist
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>> User:Jmorgan (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)>
>> jmorgan(a)wikimedia.org
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
>
> No manual descriptions, on basically any item. And that will remain so for
> the (near) future. Automatic descriptions can change that, literally over
> night, with a little programming and linguistic effort. ... This is a
> "force multiplier" of volunteer effort with a factor of 250. And we ignore
> that ... why, exactly?
Not ignoring. In fact, if the auto-generated descriptions near the quality
of human curated descriptions, I'm totally and wholeheartedly onboard that
their use should be strongly considered.
I just disagree that closing the quality gap will involve "little
programming and linguistic effort." I lean more toward "massive programming
and linguistic effort" end of the spectrum.
Specifically, I think it will take massive effort to make the
auto-generated descriptions so good that an average person would say, "hey
these auto generated descriptions are better than the human curated
descriptions" in the examples I posted.
But I may, of course, be wrong!
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 1:27 PM, S Page <spage(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> My hero Magnus Manske noted
> > The situation, for most languages, is this: No manual descriptions, on
> basically any item. And that will remain so for the (near) future.
> Automatic descriptions can change that, literally over night, with a little
> programming and linguistic effort. ... This is a "force multiplier" of
> volunteer effort with a factor of 250. And we ignore that ... why, exactly?
>
> The potential of AutoDesc is so enormous to attain "a world in which every
> single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human
> knowledge" that it should be the entire movement's top project. I nearly
> wrote a career-limiting e-mail rant to WMF-all on that subject last night.
>
> In this e-mail thread we're talking about it in the limited scope of "Wikidata
> descriptions in search on mobile web beta", where the mobile client
> presents a useful signpost for *existing* articles, in an emblem on lead
> images and in search results. That's important but we're missing the forest
> for a single tree when discussing such a transformative technology. If only
> WMF had a CTO for such things [1].
>
> Anyway, returning to this specific use case:
> * Nobody is saying store the AutoDesc in the Wikidata per-language
> description field.
> * Nobody is saying show the AutoDesc if there is an existing Wikidata
> description.
> * Is anybody against showing AutoDesc, after some refinement and
> productization [2], in these mobile use cases when there is no Wikidata
> description?
> * I propose the AutoDesc as a quality bar that any edit to a Wikidata
> description needs to improve on (but again that's a topic beyond this mail
> thread).
>
> Yours, excitedly,
> =S Page
>
> [1] http://grnh.se/30f54b , apply today!
> [2] https://bitbucket.org/magnusmanske/autodesc/src/HEAD/www/js/?at=master
> and https://github.com/dbrant/wikidata-autodesc . It's already a nodejs
> service, can we append "oid" and declare victory ? :-)
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 2:57 AM, Magnus Manske <
> magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Oh, and as for examples, random-paging just got me this:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jules_Malou
>>
>> Manual description: Belgian politician
>>
>> Automatic description: Belgian politician and lawyer, Prime Minister of
>> Belgium, and member of the Chamber of Representatives of Belgium
>> (1810–1886) ♂
>>
>> I know which one I'd prefer...
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:50 AM Magnus Manske <
>> magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you Dmitry! Well phrased and to the point!
>>>
>>> As for "templating", that might be the worst of both worlds; without the
>>> flexibility and over-time improvement of automatic descriptions, but making
>>> it harder for people to enter (compared to "free-style" text). We have a
>>> Visual Editor on Wikipedia for a reason :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:07 AM Dmitry Brant <dbrant(a)wikimedia.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> My thoughts, as ever(!), are as follows:
>>>>
>>>> - The tool that generates the descriptions deserves a lot more
>>>> development. Magnus' tool is very much a prototype, and represents a tiny
>>>> glimpse of what's possible. Looking at its current output is a straw man.
>>>> - Auto-generated descriptions work for current articles, and *all
>>>> future articles*. They automatically adapt to updated data. They
>>>> automatically become more accurate as new data is added.
>>>> - When you edit the descriptions yourself, you're not really making a
>>>> meaningful contribution to the *data* that underpins the given Wikidata
>>>> entry; i.e. you're not contributing any new information. You're simply
>>>> paraphrasing the first sentence or two of the Wikipedia article. That can't
>>>> possibly be a productive use of contributors' time.
>>>>
>>>> As for Brian's suggestion:
>>>> It would be a step forward; we can even invent a whole template-type
>>>> syntax for transcluding bits of actual data into the description. But IMO,
>>>> that kind of effort would still be better spent on fully-automatic
>>>> descriptions, because that's the ideal that semi-automatic descriptions can
>>>> only approach.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 10:36 PM, Brian Gerstle <bgerstle(a)wikimedia.org
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Could there be a way to have our nicely curated description cake and
>>>>> eat it too? For example, interpolating data into the description and/or
>>>>> marking data points which are referenced in the description (so as to mark
>>>>> it as outdated when they change)?
>>>>>
>>>>> I appreciate the potential benefits of generated descriptions (and
>>>>> other things), but Monte's examples might have swayed me towards human
>>>>> curated—when available.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday, August 18, 2015, Monte Hurd <mhurd(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok, so I just did what I proposed. I went to random enwiki articles
>>>>>> and described the first ten I found which didn't already have descriptions:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - "Courage Under Fire", *1996 film about a Gulf War friendly-fire
>>>>>> incident*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - "Pebasiconcha immanis", *largest known species of land snail,
>>>>>> extinct*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - "List of Kenyan writers", *notable Kenyan authors*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - "Solar eclipse of December 14, 1917", *annular eclipse which
>>>>>> lasted 77 seconds*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - "Natchaug Forest Lumber Shed", *historic Civilian Conservation
>>>>>> Corps post-and-beam building*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - "Sun of Jamaica (album)", *debut 1980 studio album by Goombay
>>>>>> Dance Band*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - "E-1027", *modernist villa in France by architect Eileen Gray*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - "Daingerfield State Park", *park in Morris County, Texas, USA,
>>>>>> bordering Lake Daingerfield*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - "Todo Lo Que Soy-En Vivo", *2014 Live album by Mexican pop singer
>>>>>> Fey*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - "2009 UEFA Regions' Cup", *6th UEFA Regions' Cup, won by Castile
>>>>>> and Leon*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And here are the respective descriptions from Magnus' (quite
>>>>>> excellent) autodesc.js:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - "Courage Under Fire", *1996 film by Edward Zwick, produced by John
>>>>>> Davis and David T. Friendly from United States of America*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - "Pebasiconcha immanis", *species of Mollusca*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - "List of Kenyan writers", *Wikimedia list article*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - "Solar eclipse of December 14, 1917", *solar eclipse*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - "Natchaug Forest Lumber Shed", *Construction in Connecticut,
>>>>>> United States of America*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - "Sun of Jamaica (album)", *album*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - "E-1027", *villa in Roquebrune-Cap-Martin, France*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - "Daingerfield State Park", *state park and state park of a state
>>>>>> of the United States in Texas, United States of America*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - "Todo Lo Que Soy-En Vivo", *live album by Fey*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - "2009 UEFA Regions' Cup", *none*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just trying to make my own bold assertions falsifiable :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Monte Hurd <mhurd(a)wikimedia.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The whole human-vs-extracted descriptions quality question could be
>>>>>>> fairly easy to test I think:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Pick, some number of articles at random.
>>>>>>> - Run them through a description extraction script.
>>>>>>> - Have a human describe the same articles with, say, the app
>>>>>>> interface I demo'ed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If nothing else this exercise could perhaps make what's thus far
>>>>>>> been a wildly abstract discussion more concrete.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Monte Hurd <mhurd(a)wikimedia.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If having the most elegant description extraction mechanism was the
>>>>>>>> goal I would totally agree ;)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Dmitry Brant <dbrant(a)wikimedia.org
>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> IMO, allowing the user to edit the description is a missed
>>>>>>>>> opportunity to make the user edit the actual *data*, such that the
>>>>>>>>> description is generated correctly.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 8:02 PM, Monte Hurd <mhurd(a)wikimedia.org>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> IMO, if the goal is quality, then human curated descriptions are
>>>>>>>>>> superior until such time as the auto-generation script passes the Turing
>>>>>>>>>> test ;)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I see these empty descriptions as an amazing opportunity to give
>>>>>>>>>> *everyone* an easy new way to edit. I whipped an app editing interface up
>>>>>>>>>> at the Lyon hackathon:
>>>>>>>>>> bluetooth720 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VblyGhf_c8>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I used it to add a couple hundred descriptions in a single day
>>>>>>>>>> just by hitting "random" then adding descriptions for articles which didn't
>>>>>>>>>> have them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'd love to try a limited test of this in production to get a
>>>>>>>>>> sense for how effective human curation can be if the interface is easy to
>>>>>>>>>> use...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Jan Ainali <
>>>>>>>>>> jan.ainali(a)wikimedia.se> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nice one!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Does not appear to work on svwiki though. Does it have something
>>>>>>>>>>> to do with that the wiki in question does not display that tagline?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Med vänliga hälsningar,Jan Ainali*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Verksamhetschef, Wikimedia Sverige <http://wikimedia.se>
>>>>>>>>>>> 0729 - 67 29 48
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Tänk dig en värld där varje människa har fri tillgång till
>>>>>>>>>>> mänsklighetens samlade kunskap. Det är det vi gör.*
>>>>>>>>>>> Bli medlem. <http://blimedlem.wikimedia.se>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 2015-08-18 17:23 GMT+02:00 Magnus Manske <
>>>>>>>>>>> magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Show automatic description underneath "From Wikipedia...":
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Magnus_Manske/autodesc.js
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> To use, add:
>>>>>>>>>>>> importScript ( 'User:Magnus_Manske/autodesc.js' ) ;
>>>>>>>>>>>> to your common.js
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:47 AM Jane Darnell <jane023(a)gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be even better if this (short: 3 field max)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pipe-separated list was available as a gadget to wikidatans on Wikipedia
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (like me). I can't see if a page I am on has an "instance of" (though it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> should) and I can see the description thanks to another gadget (sorry no
>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea which one that is). Often I will update empty descriptions, but if I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> was served basic fields (so for a painting, the creator field), I would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> click through to update that too.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nemowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jane Darnell, 15/08/2015 08:53:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes but even if the descriptions were just the contents of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fields
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separated by a pipe it would be better than nothing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1, item descriptions are mostly useless in my experience.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for "get into production on Wikipedia" I don't know what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it means, I certainly don't like 1) mobile-specific features, 2) overriding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing manually curated content; but it's good to 3) fill gaps. Mobile
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> folks often do (1) and (2), if they *instead* did (3) I'd be very happy. :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nemo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile-l mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile-l mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile-l mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> Mobile-l mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> Mobile-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Dmitry Brant
>>>>>>>>> Mobile Apps Team (Android)
>>>>>>>>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>>>>>>>> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_mobile_engineering
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> EN Wikipedia user page:
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Brian.gerstle
>>>>> IRC: bgerstle
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dmitry Brant
>>>> Mobile Apps Team (Android)
>>>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>>> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_mobile_engineering
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 10:36 PM, Brian Gerstle <bgerstle(a)wikimedia.org
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Could there be a way to have our nicely curated description cake and
>>>>> eat it too? For example, interpolating data into the description and/or
>>>>> marking data points which are referenced in the description (so as to mark
>>>>> it as outdated when they change)?
>>>>>
>>>>> I appreciate the potential benefits of generated descriptions (and
>>>>> other things), but Monte's examples might have swayed me towards human
>>>>> curated—when available.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday, August 18, 2015, Monte Hurd <mhurd(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok, so I just did what I proposed. I went to random enwiki articles
>>>>>> and described the first ten I found which didn't already have descriptions:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - "Courage Under Fire", *1996 film about a Gulf War friendly-fire
>>>>>> incident*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - "Pebasiconcha immanis", *largest known species of land snail,
>>>>>> extinct*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - "List of Kenyan writers", *notable Kenyan authors*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - "Solar eclipse of December 14, 1917", *annular eclipse which
>>>>>> lasted 77 seconds*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - "Natchaug Forest Lumber Shed", *historic Civilian Conservation
>>>>>> Corps post-and-beam building*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - "Sun of Jamaica (album)", *debut 1980 studio album by Goombay
>>>>>> Dance Band*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - "E-1027", *modernist villa in France by architect Eileen Gray*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - "Daingerfield State Park", *park in Morris County, Texas, USA,
>>>>>> bordering Lake Daingerfield*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - "Todo Lo Que Soy-En Vivo", *2014 Live album by Mexican pop singer
>>>>>> Fey*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - "2009 UEFA Regions' Cup", *6th UEFA Regions' Cup, won by Castile
>>>>>> and Leon*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And here are the respective descriptions from Magnus' (quite
>>>>>> excellent) autodesc.js:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - "Courage Under Fire", *1996 film by Edward Zwick, produced by John
>>>>>> Davis and David T. Friendly from United States of America*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - "Pebasiconcha immanis", *species of Mollusca*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - "List of Kenyan writers", *Wikimedia list article*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - "Solar eclipse of December 14, 1917", *solar eclipse*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - "Natchaug Forest Lumber Shed", *Construction in Connecticut,
>>>>>> United States of America*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - "Sun of Jamaica (album)", *album*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - "E-1027", *villa in Roquebrune-Cap-Martin, France*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - "Daingerfield State Park", *state park and state park of a state
>>>>>> of the United States in Texas, United States of America*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - "Todo Lo Que Soy-En Vivo", *live album by Fey*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - "2009 UEFA Regions' Cup", *none*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just trying to make my own bold assertions falsifiable :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Monte Hurd <mhurd(a)wikimedia.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The whole human-vs-extracted descriptions quality question could be
>>>>>>> fairly easy to test I think:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Pick, some number of articles at random.
>>>>>>> - Run them through a description extraction script.
>>>>>>> - Have a human describe the same articles with, say, the app
>>>>>>> interface I demo'ed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If nothing else this exercise could perhaps make what's thus far
>>>>>>> been a wildly abstract discussion more concrete.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Monte Hurd <mhurd(a)wikimedia.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If having the most elegant description extraction mechanism was the
>>>>>>>> goal I would totally agree ;)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Dmitry Brant <dbrant(a)wikimedia.org
>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> IMO, allowing the user to edit the description is a missed
>>>>>>>>> opportunity to make the user edit the actual *data*, such that the
>>>>>>>>> description is generated correctly.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 8:02 PM, Monte Hurd <mhurd(a)wikimedia.org>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> IMO, if the goal is quality, then human curated descriptions are
>>>>>>>>>> superior until such time as the auto-generation script passes the Turing
>>>>>>>>>> test ;)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I see these empty descriptions as an amazing opportunity to give
>>>>>>>>>> *everyone* an easy new way to edit. I whipped an app editing interface up
>>>>>>>>>> at the Lyon hackathon:
>>>>>>>>>> bluetooth720 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VblyGhf_c8>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I used it to add a couple hundred descriptions in a single day
>>>>>>>>>> just by hitting "random" then adding descriptions for articles which didn't
>>>>>>>>>> have them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'd love to try a limited test of this in production to get a
>>>>>>>>>> sense for how effective human curation can be if the interface is easy to
>>>>>>>>>> use...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Jan Ainali <
>>>>>>>>>> jan.ainali(a)wikimedia.se> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nice one!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Does not appear to work on svwiki though. Does it have something
>>>>>>>>>>> to do with that the wiki in question does not display that tagline?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Med vänliga hälsningar,Jan Ainali*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Verksamhetschef, Wikimedia Sverige <http://wikimedia.se>
>>>>>>>>>>> 0729 - 67 29 48
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Tänk dig en värld där varje människa har fri tillgång till
>>>>>>>>>>> mänsklighetens samlade kunskap. Det är det vi gör.*
>>>>>>>>>>> Bli medlem. <http://blimedlem.wikimedia.se>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 2015-08-18 17:23 GMT+02:00 Magnus Manske <
>>>>>>>>>>> magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Show automatic description underneath "From Wikipedia...":
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Magnus_Manske/autodesc.js
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> To use, add:
>>>>>>>>>>>> importScript ( 'User:Magnus_Manske/autodesc.js' ) ;
>>>>>>>>>>>> to your common.js
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:47 AM Jane Darnell <jane023(a)gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be even better if this (short: 3 field max)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pipe-separated list was available as a gadget to wikidatans on Wikipedia
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (like me). I can't see if a page I am on has an "instance of" (though it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> should) and I can see the description thanks to another gadget (sorry no
>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea which one that is). Often I will update empty descriptions, but if I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> was served basic fields (so for a painting, the creator field), I would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> click through to update that too.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nemowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jane Darnell, 15/08/2015 08:53:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes but even if the descriptions were just the contents of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fields
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separated by a pipe it would be better than nothing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1, item descriptions are mostly useless in my experience.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for "get into production on Wikipedia" I don't know what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it means, I certainly don't like 1) mobile-specific features, 2) overriding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing manually curated content; but it's good to 3) fill gaps. Mobile
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> folks often do (1) and (2), if they *instead* did (3) I'd be very happy. :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nemo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile-l mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile-l mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile-l mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> Mobile-l mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> Mobile-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Dmitry Brant
>>>>>>>>> Mobile Apps Team (Android)
>>>>>>>>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>>>>>>>> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_mobile_engineering
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> EN Wikipedia user page:
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Brian.gerstle
>>>>> IRC: bgerstle
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dmitry Brant
>>>> Mobile Apps Team (Android)
>>>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>>> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_mobile_engineering
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Mobile-l mailing list
>>>> Mobile-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
>>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Mobile-l mailing list
>> Mobile-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> =S Page WMF Tech writer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mobile-l mailing list
> Mobile-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
>
>
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 7:50 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> If RCOM needs more volunteer Wikimedians, the alive and well IEG Committee
> includes a Research Working Group that reviews grant proposals for WMF
> funding through the IEG program, so RCOM could reach out to IEGCom. I'm on
> IEGCom and the RWG but I can't speak for RCOM. (:
>
Thanks, Pine. I'll likely hold you to that offer ;)
>
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Kerry Raymond <kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I guess I was not so much thinking of an general invitation to the R&D
>> Showcase but a specific “expectation” (albeit couched as an invitation) on
>> those given permission to recruit via WMF channels to give a few short (or
>> long as appropriate to the stage of their research) talks on their project.
>> Ditto research projects supported through IEG or similar.
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree that OpenSym is available as a research conference but it is not
>> run by our community and therefore doesn’t help to create a sense of
>> community with the researchers in question. Wikimania is run by our
>> community but isn’t a research conference (would not count as a publication
>> for academic purposes). But I don’t know if it’s realistic to try to
>> establish another conference in terms of the volunteer effort to run it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kerry
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* wiki-research-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:
>> wiki-research-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of *Aaron
>> Halfaker
>> *Sent:* Friday, 18 July 2014 1:45 AM
>>
>> *To:* Research into Wikimedia content and communities
>> *Subject:* Re: [Wiki-research-l] discussion about wikipedia surveys
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Kerry said:
>>
>> Because of the criticism of “not giving back”, could we perhaps do things
>> to try to make the researcher feel part of the community to make “giving
>> back” more likely? For example, could we give them a slot every now and
>> again to talk about their project in the R&D Showcase? Encourage them to be
>> on this mailing list. Are we at a point where it might make sense to
>> organise a Wikipedia research conference to help build a research
>> community? Just thinking aloud here …
>>
>>
>>
>> This is a bit different than the main topic, so I wanted to break it out
>> into another reply.
>>
>>
>>
>> We just had Nate Matias[0] from the MIT media lab present on his work at
>> the last showcase[1]. We also just sent out a survey about the showcase
>> that includes a call for recommended speakers at future showcases[2]. As
>> for a Wikipedia research conference, see OpenSym[3] (formerly WikiSym) and
>> Wikimania[4] (not as researchy, but a great venue to maximize wiki research
>> impact).
>>
>>
>>
>> 0. http://natematias.com/
>>
>> 1.
>> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Analytics/Research_and_Data/Showcase#July_20…
>>
>> 2.
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/2014-July/003574.html
>>
>> 3. http://www.opensym.org/os2014/
>>
>> 4. https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Aaron Halfaker <aaron.halfaker(a)gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Aaron, when I read that it is active because I had heard from others
>> in your team about a year or two ago that this wasn't going to be the
>> vehicle for obtaining permission going forward and that a new, more
>> lightweight process was being designed.
>>
>>
>>
>> 1) If anyone told you that we are no longer active, they were wrong.
>>
>> 2) The "lightweight" process you refer to is what I linked to in enwiki
>> in my previous response. See again:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Research_recruitment
>>
>>
>>
>> Generally, there seems to be a misconception that RCom == paid WMF
>> activities. While RCom involves a relationship with the Wikimedia
>> Foundation, our activities as part of RCom are 100% volunteer and open to
>> participation from other Wikipedians (seriously, let me know if you want to
>> help out!), and as such, our backlog tends to suffer when our available
>> volunteer time does. FWIW, I became involved in this work as a volunteer
>> (before I started working with the WMF). With that in mind, it seems like
>> we are not discussing RCom itself which is mostly inactive -- so much as we
>> are discussing the subject recruitment review process which is still
>> active. Let me state this clearly: *If you send an email to me or Dario
>> about a research project that you would like reviewed, we will help you
>> coordinate a review. *Our job as review coordinators is to make sure
>> that the study is adequately documented and that Wikipedians and other
>> researchers are pulled in to discuss the material. We don't just welcome
>> broad involvement -- we need it! We all suffer from the lack of it.
>> Please show up help us!
>>
>>
>>
>> To give you some context on the current stats and situation, I should
>> probably give a bit of history. I've been working to improve subject
>> recruitment review -- with the goal of improving interactions between
>> researchers and Wikipedians -- for years. Let me first say that *I'm
>> game to make this better.* In my experience, the biggest issue to
>> documenting the a review/endorsement/whatever process that I have come
>> across is this: there seems to be a lot of people who feel that minimizing *process
>> description* provides power and adaptability to intended processes[1].
>> It's these people that I've regularly battled in my frequent efforts to
>> increase the formalization around the subject recruitment proposal vetting
>> process (e.g. SRAG had a structured appeals process and stated timelines).
>> The result of these battles is the severely under-documented process
>> "described" in meta:R:FAQ <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:FAQ>.
>>
>>
>>
>> Here's some links to my previous work on subject recruitment process that
>> will show these old discussions about process creep
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_instruction_creep>.
>>
>> ·
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Subject_Recruitment_Approvals_Group
>>
>> o
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Subject_Recruitment_Approvals_…
>>
>> ·
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Research&oldid=3546001…
>>
>> o https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Research/Archive_1
>>
>> o https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Research/Archive_2 --
>> Note that this was actually an *enwiki policy* for about 5 hours before
>> the RfC was overturned due to too few editors being involved in the straw
>> poll.
>>
>> For new work, see my current (but stalled for about 1.5 years) push for a
>> structured process on English Wikipedia.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Research_recruitment See also
>> the checklist I have been working on with Lane.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Research_recruitment/Wikipedian_che…
>>
>>
>>
>> When you review these docs and the corresponding conversations, please
>> keep in mind that I was a new Wikipedian for the development of WP:SRAG and
>> WP:Research, so I made some really critical mistakes -- like taking
>> hyperbolic criticism of the proposals personally. :\
>>
>>
>>
>> So what now? Well, in the meantime, if you let me know about some
>> subject recruitment you want to do, I'll help you find someone to
>> coordinate a review that fits within the process described in the RCom
>> docs. In the short term, are any of you folks interested in going through
>> some iterations of the new WP:Research_recruitment policy doc?
>>
>>
>>
>> -Aaron
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 2:38 AM, Heather Ford <hfordsa(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Agree with Kerry that we really need to have a more flexible process that
>> speaks to the main problem that (I think) RCOM was started to solve i.e.
>> that Wikipedians were getting tired of being continually contacted by
>> researchers to fill out *surveys*. I'm not sure where feelings are about
>> that right now (I certainly haven't seen a huge amount of surveys myself)
>> but I guess the big question right now is whether RCOM is actually active
>> or not. I must say that I was surprised, Aaron, when I read that it is
>> active because I had heard from others in your team about a year or two ago
>> that this wasn't going to be the vehicle for obtaining permission going
>> forward and that a new, more lightweight process was being designed. As
>> Nathan discusses on the Wikimedia-l list, there aren't many indications
>> that RCOM is still active. Perhaps there has been a recent decision to
>> resuscitate it? If that's the case, let us know about it :) And then we can
>> discuss what needs to happen to build a good process.
>>
>>
>>
>> One immediate requirement that I've been talking to others about is
>> finding ways of making the case to the WMF as a group of researchers for
>> the anonymization of country level data, for example. I've spoken to a few
>> researchers (and I myself made a request about a year ago that hasn't been
>> responded to) and it seems like some work is required by the foundation to
>> do this anonymisation but that there are a few of us who would be really
>> keen to use this data to produce research very valuable to Wikipedia -
>> especially from smaller language versions/developing countries. Having an
>> official process that assesses how worthwhile this investment of time would
>> be to the Foundation would be a great idea, I think, but right now there
>> seems to be a general focus on the research that the Foundation does itself
>> rather than enabling researchers outside. I know how busy Aaron and Dario
>> (and others in the team) are so perhaps this requires a new position to
>> coordinate between researchers and Foundation resources?
>>
>>
>>
>> Anyway, I think the big question right now is whether there are any plans
>> for RCOM that have been made by the research team and the only people who
>> can answer that are folks in the research team :)
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Heather.
>>
>>
>> Heather Ford
>> Oxford Internet Institute <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk> Doctoral Programme
>> EthnographyMatters <http://ethnographymatters.net> | Oxford Digital
>> Ethnography Group <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=115>
>> http://hblog.org | @hfordsa <http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 17 July 2014 08:49, Kerry Raymond <kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, I meant the community/communities of WMF. But the authority of the
>> community derives from WMF, which chooses to delegate such matters. I think
>> that “advise” is a good word to use.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kerry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* Amir E. Aharoni [mailto:amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, 17 July 2014 5:37 PM
>> *To:* kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com; Research into Wikimedia content and
>> communities
>>
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Wiki-research-l] discussion about wikipedia surveys
>>
>>
>>
>> > WMF does not "own" me as a contributor; it does not decide who can and
>> cannot recruit me for whatever purposes.
>>
>> I don't think that it really should be about WMF. The WMF shouldn't
>> enforce anything. The community can formulate good practices for
>> researchers and _advise_ community members not to cooperate with
>> researchers who don't follow these practices. Not much more is needed.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
>> http://aharoni.wordpress.com
>> “We're living in pieces,
>> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
>>
>>
>>
>> 2014-07-17 8:24 GMT+03:00 Kerry Raymond <kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com>:
>>
>> Just saying here what I already put on the Talk page:
>>
>>
>>
>> I am a little bothered by the opening sentence "This page documents the
>> process that researchers must follow before asking Wikipedia contributors
>> to participate in research studies such as surveys, interviews and
>> experiments."
>>
>> WMF does not "own" me as a contributor; it does not decide who can and
>> cannot recruit me for whatever purposes. What WMF does own is its
>> communication channels to me as a contributor and WMF has a right to
>> control what occurs on those channels. Also I think WMF probably should be
>> concerned about both its readers and its contributors being recruited
>> through its channels (as either might be being recruited). I think this
>> distinction should be made, e.g.
>>
>> "This page documents the process that researchers must follow if they
>> wish to use Wikipedia's (WMF's?) communication channels to recruit people
>> to participate in research studies such as surveys, interviews and
>> experiments. Communication channels include its mailing lists, its Project
>> pages, Talk pages, and User Talk pages [and whatever else I've forgotten]."
>>
>>
>>
>> If researchers want to recruit WPians via non-WMF means, I don’t think
>> it’s any business of WMF’s. An example might be a researcher who wanted to
>> contact WPians via chapters or thorgs; I would leave it for the
>> chapter/thorg to decide if they wanted to assist the researcher via their
>> communication channels.
>>
>>
>>
>> Of course, the practical reality of it is that some researchers
>> (oblivious of WMF’s concerns in relation to recruitment of WPians to
>> research projects) will simply use WMF’s channels without asking nicely
>> first. Obviously we can remove such requests on-wiki and follow up any
>> email requests with the commentary that this was not an approved request.
>> In my category of [whatever else I’ve forgotten], I guess there are things
>> like Facebook groups and any other social media presence.
>>
>>
>>
>> Also to be practical, if WMF is to have a process to vet research
>> surveys, I think it has to be sufficiently fast and not be overly demanding
>> to avoid the possibility of the researcher giving up (“too hard to deal
>> with these people”) and simply spamming email, project pages, social media
>> in the hope of recruiting some participants regardless. That is, if we make
>> it too slow/hard to do the right thing, we effectively encourage doing the
>> wrong thing. Also, what value-add can we give them to reward those who do
>> the right thing? It’s nice to have a carrot as well as a stick when it
>> comes to onerous processes J
>>
>>
>>
>> Because of the criticism of “not giving back”, could we perhaps do things
>> to try to make the researcher feel part of the community to make “giving
>> back” more likely? For example, could we give them a slot every now and
>> again to talk about their project in the R&D Showcase? Encourage them to be
>> on this mailing list. Are we at a point where it might make sense to
>> organise a Wikipedia research conference to help build a research
>> community? Just thinking aloud here …
>>
>>
>>
>> Kerry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* wiki-research-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:
>> wiki-research-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of *Aaron
>> Halfaker
>> *Sent:* Thursday, 17 July 2014 6:59 AM
>> *To:* Research into Wikimedia content and communities
>> *Subject:* Re: [Wiki-research-l] discussion about wikipedia surveys
>>
>>
>>
>> RCOM review is still alive and looking for new reviewers (really,
>> coordinators). Researchers can be directed to me or Dario (
>> dtaraborelli(a)wikimedia.org) to be assigned a reviewer. There is also a
>> proposed policy on enwiki that could use some eyeballs:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Research_recruitment
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <
>> nemowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> phoebe ayers, 16/07/2014 19:21:
>>
>> > (Personally, I think the answer should be to resuscitate RCOM, but
>> > that's easy to say and harder to do!)
>>
>> IMHO in the meanwhile the most useful thing folks can do is subscribing
>> to the feed of new research pages:
>> <
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:NewPages&feed=atom&hid…
>> >
>> It's easier to build a functioning RCOM out of an active community of
>> "reviewers", than the other way round.
>>
>> Nemo
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
--
Jonathan T. Morgan
Learning Strategist
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)>
jmorgan(a)wikimedia.org
Here's 6 months worth of reporting from Wikimedia Italy about their
recent activities. One particular piece of news below that I found
very interesting is the announcement of a library space-sharing
agreement -- hopefully we'll see more dedicated physical spaces for
free culture soon :-)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki(a)gmail.com>
Date: 2010/7/19
Subject: [Wikimedia Chapters Reports] WM-IT chapter report January-June 2010
To: chapters-reports(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Excuse me if I use HTML, I hope it won't bother you too much but there
are lots of links. You can find the issue online, as always:
http://www.wikimedia.it/index.php/Wikimedia_news/numero_29/en
_________________________________________
<http://www.wikimedia.it/index.php/File:Wikimedia_news1.png>
*W i K i M e D i A N e W s* no. 29 - July 19, 2010
Official bulletin from Wikimedia Italia Association.
TOC
* 1 Editorial <#Editorial>
* 2 What happened during last months <#What_happened_during_last_months>
* 3 Special on Digital Freedoms Festival
<#Special_on_Digital_Freedoms_Festival>
o 3.1 Events <#Events>
* 4 What will happen next months <#What_will_happen_next_months>
* 5 News from our groups <#News_from_our_groups>
o 5.1 Wikimedia Roma <#Wikimedia_Roma>
+ 5.1.1 New premises for Wikimedia Italia!
<#New_premises_for_Wikimedia_Italia.21>
o 5.2 GLAM <#GLAM>
* 6 News from our projects <#News_from_our_projects>
o 6.1 News from Biblioteca <#News_from_Biblioteca>
o 6.2 News from Wiki@Home <#News_from_Wiki.40Home>
+ 6.2.1 We need volunteers <#We_need_volunteers>
* 7 News from WMF projects <#News_from_WMF_projects>
* 8 News from the Board <#News_from_the_Board>
* 9 Monthly strip <#Monthly_strip>
* 10 Featured Wikimedian/Picture of the month
<#Featured_Wikimedian.2FPicture_of_the_month>
Editorial
After a heated internal debate about the reasons and motives that we
have and led to the creation of Wikimedia Italia, we decided - better:
on Frieda's suggestion I decided - to ask directly to our members, and
generally to those who would care to respond, what role WMI should have
in their opinion.
<http://www.wikimedia.it/index.php/File:Conosci_wmi.png>
<http://www.wikimedia.it/index.php/File:Conosci_wmi.png>
Do you know WMI?
<http://www.wikimedia.it/index.php/File:Wikimediaitalia_e.png>
<http://www.wikimedia.it/index.php/File:Wikimediaitalia_e.png>
What is Wikimedia Italia?
From the questionnaire it seems evident that Wikimedia Italy has a
problem of identity. Most respondents, while claiming to know us, have
in fact a wrong idea of the role of WMI: many of them confuse us with
WMF or the alleged "maintainers of Wikipedia". Few really know who we
are and cite our aim correctly, /to spread free culture/- even if they
often think we simply promote wiki projects, and even among these people
our role is not always clear and understood.
<http://www.wikimedia.it/index.php/File:Sei_iscritto_ad_un_progetto.png>
<http://www.wikimedia.it/index.php/File:Sei_iscritto_ad_un_progetto.png>
Do you participate to a wiki project?
<http://www.wikimedia.it/index.php/File:Wmf_e.png>
<http://www.wikimedia.it/index.php/File:Wmf_e.png>
WMF is?
On the one hand we act as WMF, collecting donations through the
sitenotice - by the way someone thinks it is an abuse of power, on the
other hand we are not doing the things that the foundation should do but
did not always, first of all protection from all legal issues related to
Wikipedia, and their clarification.
Proposed changes to our action could be divided into two categories:
* changes not acceptable, because we don't want or cannot put them
into practice. We should make an effort to explain why we cannot
nor want to have direct responsibility in Wikipedia, and why we
want to emphasize that we are something different and distinct
from Wikipedia.
* changes potentially acceptable, or proposals we already take care
of and that maybe nobody knows.
I will present a more detailed version of the result of the survey in
September: for the time being, here there is a brief annotated list of
some of the proposals that I believe fall under the second category.
1. Keep media relations. We are already moving in this area, but we
could obviously do more to improve our image.
2. Lobbying. Having more visibility, see above, would allow us to
exert some political pressure.
3. Relations with the "civil society". Establish relationships with
cultural institutions, authors, publishers and so on. We are
already doing it, or at least we try, but it does not seem this is
well known.
4. Distributed presence. Our new base in Rome seems a step in this
direction.
5. Use resources to free content (digitizing). We are talking about
this at this very time: as soon as we'll have something concrete
we will publicize it.
6. Create a DVD of Wikipedia. Apart from the traditional problem of
finding a publisher, now we have a further problem: the use of the
logo, and the associated economic agreements, must be agreed
directly with Wikimedia Foundation.
DracoRoboter <http://www.wikimedia.it/index.php/Utente:DracoRoboter>
What happened during last months
Note: all links are in Italian
* January
o Aubrey and Laurentius teached Tuscany librarians about
Wikipedia and Progetto Comuni. See #GLAM.
o Massimiliano Navacchia took part in Accessibility e CMS Camp
2010 in Bologna.
* February
o VirtualSkiz made a report during the event Sentieri Digitali
<http://www.wikimedia.it/index.php/Sentieri_Digitali>.
o Laurentius took part in Caffè-Scienza /From Free Software to
Wikipedia: collaborating in a network
<http://www.wikimedia.it/index.php/Dal_software_libero_a_Wikipedia:_collabor…>/.
o Roman members organized a WikiTrip
<http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/it:Wikipedia:Raduni/Roma_WikiGita_febbraio_20…>
to Anzio and Landing Museum.
* March
o LaPizia, supported by Marcok, Cotton and Jaakko, teached two
lessons to present Wikipedia at the Faculty of Economics,
University Ca 'Foscari, at the kind invitation of Professor
Micelli: report of the day
<http://www.wikimedia.it/index.php/Associazione:Venezia_2010>.
MarcoK <http://www.wikimedia.it/index.php/Utente:Marcok>
reports:
+ On Tuesday, March 2, 2010, we were invited - through
"LaPizia
<http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/it:Utente:LaPizia>"
a.k.a. Annalety - to cooperate with the Faculty of
Economics Ca' Foscari in Venice for two lectures held
by professor Stefano Micelli (Dept. of Economics and
Management) and Alessandro De Rossi (researcher).
Alessandro follows us since long ago, and he made one
of the first studies on the most active Wikipedians
(some of us have even met him in person at our
events). In addition to the LaPizia there were Marcok,
Cotton and Jaakko. After a general introduction about
the tools of Web 2.0 by Alessandro, Anna overviewed
Wikipedia, then gave way to many students' questions
to which everyone of us responded in turn. 60 students
participated overall (40 in the first class and 20 in
the second), I think all from the M.Sc. courses in
Economics. Apart from the interest in the subject (by
teacher and students) we however noticed that while
everyone knew and used Wikipedia, only one in 60
college students had changed (once and as an
anonymous) a Wikipedia article, while at least 30% of
them did not even know that the contents could be
altered, also without being registered. This
unexpected result can be attributed at least in part -
according to Professor Micelli - to our "assuming"
Wikipedia rules for granted by everyone. Only a small
proportion of students reported that they found errors
on Wikipedia, mostly spelling-related (and we know
that large or small errors there are in all entries of
Wikipedia and all other encyclopedias). A student made
the interesting observation, interesting that the main
page does not give much importance to the fact that
the contents of the Encyclopedia are changeable, so
that he did not realize it. Overall the day was
interesting and useful.
o Frieda teached in Bocconi University in the course Strategy
and governance of cultural organizzations, about Wikipedia
business model. Here
<http://www.slideshare.net/ubifrieda/the-wikipedia-model-3376984>
the slides (in English).
o Laurentius and IgnLig took part to a meeting organized by
Firenze Linux User Group Here
<http://www.slideshare.net/ignazio71/wikipmediaefirenze-090714053012-phpapp0…>
the slides.
o General assembly of Wikimedia Italia in Pistoia (public page
<http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/it:Wikipedia:Raduni/Pistoia_2010_Assemblea_WMI>):
2009 financial report
<http://www.wikimedia.it/index.php/Bilancio_consuntivo_2009>
and 2010 budget
<http://www.wikimedia.it/index.php/Bilancio_preventivo_2010>
were approved.
o March 26th, Torino: international meeting Extracting Value
From Public Sector Information: Legal Framework and
Regional Policies at Aula Magna and Aula Allara of the
Rectorate of the University, in the framework of EVPSI
project
<http://www.epsiplatform.eu/news/news/evpsi_public_launch>.
.mau. took part to the afternoon session (Focus on Italy)
with a speech "Obstacles to Accessing and Re-using (Italian)
Cultural PSI on Wikipedia", listing the problems Wikipedia
faces in trying to reuse public data, in coping with Italian
copyright laws and in pushing for free licenses. English
abstract
<http://www.wikimedia.it/index.php/File:EVSPI-abstract-eng.odt>
and slide
<http://www.wikimedia.it/index.php/File:EVPSI-slide-eng.odp>
here.
o Marcok took part in meeting Didattica aperta - Libero
accesso a software e saperi nella Scuola e nell'Università
(Open education - free access to software and knowledge at
school and university) with a poster.
* May
o May 7th: CristianCantoro took part in Internet Ergo Sum,
here in depth <http://blog.popolis.it/7maggio2010/>, talking
about Wikipedia in a high school in Leno (Brescia): themes
are Wikipedia and freedom in the Net, which most students
found interesting. With him Guido Nardo, former Facebook's
developer and social network specialist, presenting social
networks e talking about the problem with the use of
Facebook and privacy on the Internet. In the afternoon the
workshop on Wikipedia had a good success among students,
even if it was optional; it was structured as a tutorial for
the prospective editors.
o Wikimedia Italia organized Festival delle Libertà Digitali
(see next section)
o Schio (VI): Cotton presented Wikipedia, WMI and the
Wikimedia projects in a meeting organized by /I Mercoledì
della Piazza Telematica/, a department of Informagiovani at
the communality of Schio. The meeting, attended by an
audience of elderly, confirmed that in that demographics
there is a lot of room to increase knowledge and
participation to Wikimedia projects.
* June
o musicamp (Laurentius) (report
<http://www.wikimedia.it/index.php/MusiCamp>)
o CristianCantoro took part to the first IULM BarCamp;
unfortunately its speech could not be delivered. He was
however conctacted for an interview broadcasted on Radio24
and made by the students of the Master in Radio
Communication at IULM.
o Cotton and La Pizia took part with a small Wikimedia booth
to /No Skei Day/ at San Vito di Leguzzano (VI), a yearly
meeting based on free exchanges of goods and knowledge. Even
if the town is very small, we had some success in giving out
information and distributing brochures and Wikimedia cards.
Special on Digital Freedoms Festival
From 10 to 16 May 2010, the association organized the second Digital
Freedoms Festival <http://libertadigitali.org> (FDLD, for "Festival
delle libertà digitali") in Milan entitled "Milan frees all". Events
were numerous and ranged from comics to photo via OpenAccess and free
games.
The festival was born as a container for different events with a common
goal: bringing people and an entire city to the issues of digital
freedom, free licenses and sharing of knowledge.
Certainly the festival was an opportunity for growth for the
association, which was able to test his strength on a difficult location
like Milan: results, despite a relatively low public participation in
general, have been useful to increase our contacts with other
associations with whom we share goals and philosophy.
The most successful events will be replicated in the future.
Events
May 10
* Sharing, science, common good
<http://libertadigitali.org/eventi/condivisione-scienza-bene-comune>:
a meeting where experts from Open Access, academy and teachers
debated.
* SGRUNT! Paper and bits for open culture
<http://libertadigitali.org/eventi/sgrunt-carta-e-bit-al-servizio-dellopen-c…>:
a panel discussion on comics, authors and the comparison between
"paper" and "network" media.
May 11
Open&Crowd, supplementary gears
<http://libertadigitali.org/eventi/open-crowd-le-marce-in-piu>
May 12
fotoMIgira <http://libertadigitali.org/eventi/fotomigira>: look at Milan
from behind a lens, communicating with other passionate photographers,
to discover that encyclopedias have a photographic soul.
May 13
Open Web - Una serata al collegio di Milano
<http://libertadigitali.org/eventi/open-web-una-sera-al-collegio-di-milano>:
Wikipedia, la libertà e la rete: quanto è libera la rete? Siamo
diventati più responsabili nel nostro approccio alla rete dalla nascita
del web 2.0 ad oggi? Wikimedia Italia e Google incontrano i ragazzi del
Collegio di Milano.
May 14
GGDMilano#12 - Ignite: How to
<http://libertadigitali.org/eventi/girl-geek-dinner-milano-12-howto>:
GGDs (Geek Girls Dinners) are dinners or meetings aimed at women who are
passionate about technology, Internet and new media. Twelfth Milan
dinner was an "Ignite", where speakers presented their "How to", that is
how to do something particularly "geek".
May 15
GNUfun - Milano frees music
<http://libertadigitali.org/eventi/gnufun-milano-libera-la-musica>:
Saturday with free music, in collaboration with GNUFunk: openday @ "Kubi
studio" (Via Carlo Botta, 13) from 15:00 and concert +dj-set with fre
music @ "Le trottoir alla Darsena" (Piazza XXIV Maggio, 1)
May 16
OpenGamingCamp - Milano frees games
<http://libertadigitali.org/eventi/opengamingcamp-milano-libera-i-giochi>:
the fun side of freedom: a BarCamp, that is a non-conference where
anyone can "get in the chair", propose a topic and talk to others,
accompanied by free games tournaments.
Throughout the event, WikiWall - a Wikipedia page at Triennale
<http://libertadigitali.org/eventi/wikiwall-una-pagina-di-wikipedia-in-trien…>:
an installation at the Triennale similar to a Wikipedia page: people can
write, edit or attack photos to tell what the digital freedom is.
What will happen next months
* in September (tentative location: Bologna) we'll have our annual
meeting.
News from our groups
Wikimedia Roma
New premises for Wikimedia Italia!
Wikimedia Italy will soon have a physical location. Offices, large
enough to host some workshops and a dozen workstations, are in Rome, via
Grotta di Gregna 27 (Google map
<http://maps.google.it/maps?q=41.913514,12.564609&num=1&sll=41.819915,12.440…>).
The premises are the result of an agreement between the Department of
Culture of the Municipality of Rome, the Libraries of the City of Rome
and the association Liber Liber <http://www.liberliber.it/>. The planned
activities consist in setting up three laboratories: video editing,
e-book digitizing/layout and audio editing for the creation of
audiobooks. We also expect to participate in European calls, for example
to promote the Open Alexandria <http://www.openalexandria.org/>, and
others that may be proposed by the most active volunteers of Wikimedia
Italy and Liber Liber.
Premises will also be used to host civil service volunteers and interns,
to organize courses and cultural events, in collaboration with the
adjacent library "Vaccheria Nardi", who has large rooms with multimedia
stations, area conferences, and of course reading rooms (the structure
as a whole has three buildings).
Opening date is still uncertain. Some details remain to be defined
(collection of certificates of conformity of equipment, testing
elevators, etc.), and we are looking for sponsors for the setting up of
laboratories. We hope to start before the end of August, even with few
workstations and without the laboratories. Anyone interested in
collaborating is invited to contact Marco Calvo
<http://www.marcocalvo.it/>.
GLAM
The WMI GLAM committee, through Aubrey and Laurentius, organized two
workshops in collaboration with Regione Toscana. The workshops (each one
during a day) were aimed to teach two different groups of librarians
from Tuscany regions how to edit and create article in Wikipedia. The
objective of the event s were to illustrate breifly how Wikipedia works
and how articles can be created: especially, librarians were interested
in municipality and cultural heritage articles, as well as articles
dedicated to libraries. The workshops partially touched also Commons and
Wikisource, as well as copyright issues.
The feedback from participants has been positive, though several issues
were raised by the low level of computer skills of many participants, as
well as inexperience from speakers in explaining clearly and linearly
Wikipedia basics. At the end of the day, the projects worked as a useful
pilot: it is hoped to have the possibility to organize other similar
events to build a stable and fruitful relationships with librarians and
other GLAM professionals.
News from our projects
News from Biblioteca
We started System Reference Document 3.5 Project
<http://biblioteca.wikimedia.it/wiki/Progetto:SRD>, together with 5°
clone <http://www.5clone.com/>, group whose purpose is to promote
intelligent games (in particular, role games).
The project intends to translate into Italia the correspondent document
<http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35> of Wizards of
the Coast <http://www.wizards.com/>, which will be released under a Open
Gaming License <http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/v35/Legal.rtf>.
News from Wiki@Home <http://www.wikimedia.it/index.php/Wiki@Home>
Many news from Wiki@Home: many interviews were completed, among them the
one with Umberto Eco (English version
<http://it.wikinews.org/wiki/Intervista_a_Umberto_Eco/Traduzione>) made
by Aubrey <http://it.wikisource.org/wiki/Utente:Aubrey> and taken up by
some bloggers and the famous online magazine Punto Informatico
<http://punto-informatico.it/2892321/PI/Commenti/contrappunti-gogol-non-prob…>.
We also repory the completion of the interview with Patrizio Roversi
<http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrizio_Roversi> by Capsicum
<http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Capsicum>. Finally, Monday, June
28, 2010 the referent of the project, CristianCantoro
<http://www.wikimedia.it/index.php/Utente:CristianCantoro>, attended a
meeting at the School of Journalism "Walter Tobagi"
<http://www.giornalismo.unimi.it> at University of Milan to present
Wikimedia Italy, the world of Creative Commons licenses and of course
Wiki@Home project.
We need volunteers
Wiki@Home staff needs willing young people of all ages to unwind
interviews, make transcripts, fix typos, create new interviews and
material for the presentation of the project. For more information
please write at the contact for the project, CristianCantoro
<http://www.wikimedia.it/index.php/Utente:CristianCantoro>, at the
address: kikkocristian(presso)
<http://www.wikimedia.it/index.php/File:Presso.svg>gmail.com.
News from WMF projects
* *Wikibooks*: DynamicPageList extension
<http://mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:DynamicPageList_%28Wikimedia%29>
is now active: now automation of shelves
<http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Biblioteca> may start.
* *Wikinotizie*: Published an intervew to Umberto Eco
<http://it.wikinews.org/wiki/Intervista_a_Umberto_Eco>, see above
<#News_from_Wiki.40Home>.
* *Wikiquote*: Fazio degli Uberti
<http://it.wikiquote.org/wiki/Fazio_degli_Uberti> is our 10,000th
article, but it.wikiquote is no more the second local version with
respect to number of articles for the first time since November
2007. pl.wikiquote had an acceleration that lead them to overtake us.
* *Wikisource*:
o Finished the joining of headers
<http://it.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Bar/Archivio/2010.03#E.27_finita.2…>
in {{Heading Template
<http://it.wikisource.org/wiki/Template:Intestazione>}}.
o Reached 45,000 pages
<http://it.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Bar/Archivio/2010.04#45.000>,
after automatic addition (between February and April)
through {{Count pages Template
<http://it.wikisource.org/wiki/Template:Conteggio_pagine>}})
of invisible links in 30K pages containing just templates
and therefore were not counted
<http://mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Using_custom_namespaces#Content_namespaces>
even if they contained "good" stuff, falsifying statistics
<http://it.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Bar/Archivio/2010.02#Mistero_svela…>
(after wikt:en:Template:count page
<http://it.wiktionary.org/wiki/en:Template:count_page>).
o Alex Brollo
<http://it.wikisource.org/wiki/Utente:Alex_brollo> was
elected sysop.
* *Wikiversity*: WHacko
<http://it.wikiversity.org/wiki/Utente:WHacko> was elected sysop:
now we have 3 sysops.
* *Wiktionary*: Limonadis
<http://it.wiktionary.org/wiki/Utente:Limonadis> was elected
sysop: now we have 9 sysops. For the first time in years,
Wiktionary has more registered users than Wikiquote (14,300 vs
14,200 on July 14), becoming thus the first Italian Wikimedia
project besides Wikipedia. Looking at active users in the last
month (roughly 60 and 160 respectively) Wikiquote remains the
first among the sister projects.
* *Wikipedia*:
o January: Welcome Project
<http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/it:Progetto:Coordinamento/Accoglienza>
for new users started.
o April: big controversy
<http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/it:Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Enciclopedia_su_…>
about the "social pages" Facebook added, containg the text
of the relative voice of Wikipedia if it exists and a link
to the modification page. Some users were troubled that the
sentence «Conquer new fan of your cause or ideal by creating
a social page» could be seen regarding the contribution to
Wikipedia (against neutral point of view
<http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/it:Wikipedia:punto_di_vista_neutrale>),
and in general that only users not fit to Wikipedia could
come from Facebook. Two sysops resigned.
o May: another controversy
<http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/it:Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Facebook,_lo_sap…...>
(or better, a ForestFire
<http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/ForestFire>) starts about
Facebook groups which defame Wikipedia and urge users to
modify it towards a certain direction, and in general about
the perceived increase in organized groups of users that
alter consensus to impose their own point of view. A new
procedure has been adopted to value and if neceassary block
such group of users (called "programmatic users
<http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/it:Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Blocchiamo_le_ut…>",
that is irrecoverably altering consensus). The first
application of the new procedure blocked some users by
mistakes; the users were immediately unblocked by another
sysop, but a sysop was not confirmed and left the project,
while four other ones quit. The community put up an essay
about how to cope with so-called single-purpose users
<http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/it:Wikipedia:Utenza_monoscopo>,
re-orienting the issue.
o May-June: five new sysops were elected.
o June: The group rollbacker
<http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/it:Wikipedia:Rollbacker> was
created in it.wiki too. Bureaucrats assign people to this
group at their sole discretion, after a public but
non-advertised request and without voting. In the first
month 12 users were assigned to the group.
News from the Board
In June, Cristian Consonni succeeded to Nicola Izzo as Board member.
Monthly strip
<http://www.wikimedia.it/index.php/File:Singloids-492eng.jpg>
Featured Wikimedian/Picture of the month
<http://www.wikimedia.it/index.php/File:Wikimania_2010_portrait_22.jpg>
<http://www.wikimedia.it/index.php/File:Wikimania_2010_portrait_22.jpg>
Aubrey <http://www.wikimedia.it/index.php/Utente:Aubrey> at Wikimania
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editorial staff:
* Frieda Brioschi;
* Marco Chemello;
* Nemo (section "News from WMF projects")
* Aubrey (section "News from Biblioteca" and GLAM)
* Christian Cantoro (section "News from W@H" )
* .mau. (English version)
To contact the staff, write at: redazione(a)wikimedia.it or directly to
the editors:
* Frieda Brioschi - ubifrieda(presso)
<http://www.wikimedia.it/index.php/File:Presso.svg>gmail.com
* CristianCantoro - kikkocristian(presso)
<http://www.wikimedia.it/index.php/File:Presso.svg>gmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Notice. This newsletter is exclusively intended for information about
Wikimedia Italia, both to its members and to the general public; as per
Art. 1, Comma 2, Legge 7 marzo 2001 no. 62, it is not an editorial product*
_______________________________________________
Chapters-reports mailing list
Chapters-reports(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/chapters-reports
--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Hi Folks:
I just wanted to interject at this point that I and others are working on
organizing a conference to host the varied work of those teaching with
Wikipedia in higher education. I hope to have more details to offer soon.
Such a conference might be slightly different from the research discussed
on this list, but I anticipate that all manner of presentations focusing on
the intersection of higher education and Wikipedia will be present -- this
would include presentations on pedagogy, but also content focusing on the
epistemologies of Wikipedia and higher education systems.
More soon.
Yours,
Bob Cummings
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 10:45 AM, <
wiki-research-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Send Wiki-research-l mailing list submissions to
> wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> wiki-research-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wiki-research-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wiki-research-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: discussion about wikipedia surveys (Aaron Halfaker)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 08:45:17 -0700
> From: Aaron Halfaker <ahalfaker(a)wikimedia.org>
> To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> <wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] discussion about wikipedia surveys
> Message-ID:
> <CAKP=3WyxNsz4C=
> s5K1+q00hw29E+AWg+ydJhk+tdH6Ls4CGUcQ(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Kerry said:
> >
> > Because of the criticism of “not giving back”, could we perhaps do things
> > to try to make the researcher feel part of the community to make “giving
> > back” more likely? For example, could we give them a slot every now and
> > again to talk about their project in the R&D Showcase? Encourage them to
> be
> > on this mailing list. Are we at a point where it might make sense to
> > organise a Wikipedia research conference to help build a research
> > community? Just thinking aloud here …
>
>
> This is a bit different than the main topic, so I wanted to break it out
> into another reply.
>
> We just had Nate Matias[0] from the MIT media lab present on his work at
> the last showcase[1]. We also just sent out a survey about the showcase
> that includes a call for recommended speakers at future showcases[2]. As
> for a Wikipedia research conference, see OpenSym[3] (formerly WikiSym) and
> Wikimania[4] (not as researchy, but a great venue to maximize wiki research
> impact).
>
> 0. http://natematias.com/
> 1.
>
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Analytics/Research_and_Data/Showcase#July_20…
> 2.
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/2014-July/003574.html
> 3. http://www.opensym.org/os2014/
> 4. https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Aaron Halfaker <aaron.halfaker(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > Aaron, when I read that it is active because I had heard from others in
> > your team about a year or two ago that this wasn't going to be the
> vehicle
> > for obtaining permission going forward and that a new, more lightweight
> > process was being designed.
> >
> > 1) If anyone told you that we are no longer active, they were wrong.
> > 2) The "lightweight" process you refer to is what I linked to in enwiki
> > in my previous response. See again:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Research_recruitment
> >
> > Generally, there seems to be a misconception that RCom == paid WMF
> > activities. While RCom involves a relationship with the Wikimedia
> > Foundation, our activities as part of RCom are 100% volunteer and open to
> > participation from other Wikipedians (seriously, let me know if you want
> to
> > help out!), and as such, our backlog tends to suffer when our available
> > volunteer time does. FWIW, I became involved in this work as a volunteer
> > (before I started working with the WMF). With that in mind, it seems
> like
> > we are not discussing RCom itself which is mostly inactive -- so much as
> we
> > are discussing the subject recruitment review process which is still
> > active. Let me state this clearly: *If you send an email to me or Dario
> > about a research project that you would like reviewed, we will help you
> > coordinate a review. *Our job as review coordinators is to make sure
> > that the study is adequately documented and that Wikipedians and other
> > researchers are pulled in to discuss the material. We don't just welcome
> > broad involvement -- we need it! We all suffer from the lack of it.
> > Please show up help us!
> >
> > To give you some context on the current stats and situation, I should
> > probably give a bit of history. I've been working to improve subject
> > recruitment review -- with the goal of improving interactions between
> > researchers and Wikipedians -- for years. Let me first say that *I'm
> > game to make this better**.* In my experience, the biggest issue to
> > documenting the a review/endorsement/whatever process that I have come
> > across is this: there seems to be a lot of people who feel that
> minimizing *process
> > description* provides power and adaptability to intended processes[1].
> > It's these people that I've regularly battled in my frequent efforts to
> > increase the formalization around the subject recruitment proposal
> vetting
> > process (e.g. SRAG had a structured appeals process and stated
> timelines).
> > The result of these battles is the severely under-documented process
> > "described" in meta:R:FAQ <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:FAQ
> >.
> >
> > Here's some links to my previous work on subject recruitment process that
> > will show these old discussions about process creep
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_instruction_creep>.
> >
> > -
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Subject_Recruitment_Approvals_Group
> > -
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Subject_Recruitment_Approvals_…
> > -
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Research&oldid=3546001…
> > - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Research/Archive_1
> > - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Research/Archive_2
> --
> > Note that this was actually an *enwiki policy* for about 5 hours
> > before the RfC was overturned due to too few editors being
> involved in the
> > straw poll.
> >
> > For new work, see my current (but stalled for about 1.5 years) push for a
> > structured process on English Wikipedia.
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Research_recruitment See also
> > the checklist I have been working on with Lane.
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Research_recruitment/Wikipedian_che…
> >
> > When you review these docs and the corresponding conversations, please
> > keep in mind that I was a new Wikipedian for the development of WP:SRAG
> and
> > WP:Research, so I made some really critical mistakes -- like taking
> > hyperbolic criticism of the proposals personally. :\
> >
> > So what now? Well, in the meantime, if you let me know about some
> subject
> > recruitment you want to do, I'll help you find someone to coordinate a
> > review that fits within the process described in the RCom docs. In the
> > short term, are any of you folks interested in going through some
> > iterations of the new WP:Research_recruitment policy doc?
> >
> > -Aaron
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 2:38 AM, Heather Ford <hfordsa(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Agree with Kerry that we really need to have a more flexible process
> that
> >> speaks to the main problem that (I think) RCOM was started to solve i.e.
> >> that Wikipedians were getting tired of being continually contacted by
> >> researchers to fill out *surveys*. I'm not sure where feelings are about
> >> that right now (I certainly haven't seen a huge amount of surveys
> myself)
> >> but I guess the big question right now is whether RCOM is actually
> active
> >> or not. I must say that I was surprised, Aaron, when I read that it is
> >> active because I had heard from others in your team about a year or two
> ago
> >> that this wasn't going to be the vehicle for obtaining permission going
> >> forward and that a new, more lightweight process was being designed. As
> >> Nathan discusses on the Wikimedia-l list, there aren't many indications
> >> that RCOM is still active. Perhaps there has been a recent decision to
> >> resuscitate it? If that's the case, let us know about it :) And then we
> can
> >> discuss what needs to happen to build a good process.
> >>
> >> One immediate requirement that I've been talking to others about is
> >> finding ways of making the case to the WMF as a group of researchers for
> >> the anonymization of country level data, for example. I've spoken to a
> few
> >> researchers (and I myself made a request about a year ago that hasn't
> been
> >> responded to) and it seems like some work is required by the foundation
> to
> >> do this anonymisation but that there are a few of us who would be really
> >> keen to use this data to produce research very valuable to Wikipedia -
> >> especially from smaller language versions/developing countries. Having
> an
> >> official process that assesses how worthwhile this investment of time
> would
> >> be to the Foundation would be a great idea, I think, but right now there
> >> seems to be a general focus on the research that the Foundation does
> itself
> >> rather than enabling researchers outside. I know how busy Aaron and
> Dario
> >> (and others in the team) are so perhaps this requires a new position to
> >> coordinate between researchers and Foundation resources?
> >>
> >> Anyway, I think the big question right now is whether there are any
> plans
> >> for RCOM that have been made by the research team and the only people
> who
> >> can answer that are folks in the research team :)
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Heather.
> >>
> >> Heather Ford
> >> Oxford Internet Institute <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk> Doctoral Programme
> >> EthnographyMatters <http://ethnographymatters.net> | Oxford Digital
> >> Ethnography Group <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=115>
> >> http://hblog.org | @hfordsa <http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 17 July 2014 08:49, Kerry Raymond <kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Yes, I meant the community/communities of WMF. But the authority of
> >>> the community derives from WMF, which chooses to delegate such
> matters. I
> >>> think that “advise” is a good word to use.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Kerry
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> *From:* Amir E. Aharoni [mailto:amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il]
> >>> *Sent:* Thursday, 17 July 2014 5:37 PM
> >>> *To:* kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com; Research into Wikimedia content and
> >>> communities
> >>>
> >>> *Subject:* Re: [Wiki-research-l] discussion about wikipedia surveys
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> > WMF does not "own" me as a contributor; it does not decide who can
> >>> and cannot recruit me for whatever purposes.
> >>>
> >>> I don't think that it really should be about WMF. The WMF shouldn't
> >>> enforce anything. The community can formulate good practices for
> >>> researchers and _advise_ community members not to cooperate with
> >>> researchers who don't follow these practices. Not much more is needed.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
> >>> http://aharoni.wordpress.com
> >>> “We're living in pieces,
> >>> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 2014-07-17 8:24 GMT+03:00 Kerry Raymond <kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com>:
> >>>
> >>> Just saying here what I already put on the Talk page:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I am a little bothered by the opening sentence "This page documents the
> >>> process that researchers must follow before asking Wikipedia
> contributors
> >>> to participate in research studies such as surveys, interviews and
> >>> experiments."
> >>>
> >>> WMF does not "own" me as a contributor; it does not decide who can and
> >>> cannot recruit me for whatever purposes. What WMF does own is its
> >>> communication channels to me as a contributor and WMF has a right to
> >>> control what occurs on those channels. Also I think WMF probably
> should be
> >>> concerned about both its readers and its contributors being recruited
> >>> through its channels (as either might be being recruited). I think this
> >>> distinction should be made, e.g.
> >>>
> >>> "This page documents the process that researchers must follow if they
> >>> wish to use Wikipedia's (WMF's?) communication channels to recruit
> people
> >>> to participate in research studies such as surveys, interviews and
> >>> experiments. Communication channels include its mailing lists, its
> Project
> >>> pages, Talk pages, and User Talk pages [and whatever else I've
> forgotten]."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> If researchers want to recruit WPians via non-WMF means, I don’t think
> >>> it’s any business of WMF’s. An example might be a researcher who
> wanted to
> >>> contact WPians via chapters or thorgs; I would leave it for the
> >>> chapter/thorg to decide if they wanted to assist the researcher via
> their
> >>> communication channels.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Of course, the practical reality of it is that some researchers
> >>> (oblivious of WMF’s concerns in relation to recruitment of WPians to
> >>> research projects) will simply use WMF’s channels without asking nicely
> >>> first. Obviously we can remove such requests on-wiki and follow up any
> >>> email requests with the commentary that this was not an approved
> request.
> >>> In my category of [whatever else I’ve forgotten], I guess there are
> things
> >>> like Facebook groups and any other social media presence.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Also to be practical, if WMF is to have a process to vet research
> >>> surveys, I think it has to be sufficiently fast and not be overly
> demanding
> >>> to avoid the possibility of the researcher giving up (“too hard to deal
> >>> with these people”) and simply spamming email, project pages, social
> media
> >>> in the hope of recruiting some participants regardless. That is, if we
> make
> >>> it too slow/hard to do the right thing, we effectively encourage doing
> the
> >>> wrong thing. Also, what value-add can we give them to reward those who
> do
> >>> the right thing? It’s nice to have a carrot as well as a stick when it
> >>> comes to onerous processes J
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Because of the criticism of “not giving back”, could we perhaps do
> >>> things to try to make the researcher feel part of the community to make
> >>> “giving back” more likely? For example, could we give them a slot
> every now
> >>> and again to talk about their project in the R&D Showcase? Encourage
> them
> >>> to be on this mailing list. Are we at a point where it might make
> sense to
> >>> organise a Wikipedia research conference to help build a research
> >>> community? Just thinking aloud here …
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Kerry
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> *From:* wiki-research-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:
> >>> wiki-research-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of *Aaron
> >>> Halfaker
> >>> *Sent:* Thursday, 17 July 2014 6:59 AM
> >>> *To:* Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> >>> *Subject:* Re: [Wiki-research-l] discussion about wikipedia surveys
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> RCOM review is still alive and looking for new reviewers (really,
> >>> coordinators). Researchers can be directed to me or Dario (
> >>> dtaraborelli(a)wikimedia.org) to be assigned a reviewer. There is also
> a
> >>> proposed policy on enwiki that could use some eyeballs:
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Research_recruitment
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <
> >>> nemowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> phoebe ayers, 16/07/2014 19:21:
> >>>
> >>> > (Personally, I think the answer should be to resuscitate RCOM, but
> >>> > that's easy to say and harder to do!)
> >>>
> >>> IMHO in the meanwhile the most useful thing folks can do is subscribing
> >>> to the feed of new research pages:
> >>> <
> >>>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:NewPages&feed=atom&hid…
> >>> >
> >>> It's easier to build a functioning RCOM out of an active community of
> >>> "reviewers", than the other way round.
> >>>
> >>> Nemo
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >>> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >>> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >>> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >
> >
>
Absolutely. Unless you are using Internet Explorer 9 or 10, we found out. Earlier versions are not supported.
If you are using IE, please use another browser for the next few days. It's really broken. Options are among others, Mozilla Firefox or Google Chrome.
We have made good progress fixing issues the prohibit fully functional use today, with currently two major issues left to resolve. I expect these will be resolved and tested working tomorrow.
An updated version will be made available by Thursday, 09:00 UTC. Deployment starts at 08:00 UTC.
If you find any issues, please see https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/How_to_report_a_bug
Please report your issues in Product MediaWiki extensions -> Component Translate.
Thanks.
--
Siebrand Mazeland
M: +31 6 50 69 1239
Skype: siebrand
Op 9 apr. 2013 om 19:32 heeft Samuel Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:
> Huzzah! Now that is something worth celebrating.
>
> On Apr 9, 2013 10:14 AM, "Federico Leva (Nemo)" <nemowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> Translations needed!
>> <https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Translate&group=page-Wi…>
>> After you translate it, you may also want to link it from the wikis in that language.
>>
>> Among the news: the new translation interface was enabled by default last wednesday. <https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/03/25/redesigning-the-translation-experienc…>
>> There are some bugs being worked on, but more reports of specific problems or things you're unhappy with are very welcome, see <https://translatewiki.net/wiki/Thread:Support/So_called_"new"_interface_completely_unusable/reply_(7)>.
>> Bugzilla is quickest way to get a response, but translatewiki.net is also quite safe, see that thread. :)
>>
>> Nemo
>>
>> -------- Messaggio originale --------
>> Oggetto: [Wikitech-ambassadors] summary of WMF engineering in March: Visual editor, notifications, mobile, & more
>> Data: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 23:53:13 -0400
>> Hi,
>>
>> The report covering Wikimedia engineering activities in March 2013 is
>> now available. Thanks to Guillaume Paumier and Tilman Bayer and the
>> engineers who helped me put this together.
>>
>> Wiki version:
>> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_engineering_report/2013/March
>> Blog version:
>> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/04/04/engineering-march-2013-report/
>>
>> We're also providing a shorter, simpler and translatable version of this
>> report that does not assume specialized technical knowledge. It's
>> onwiki at
>> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_engineering_report/2013/March/summ…
>> and I thought you might like to have it in an email.
>>
>> As always, feedback is appreciated about the usefulness of the report
>> and its summary, and on how to improve them.
>>
>> --
>> Sumana Harihareswara
>> Engineering Community Manager
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>
>>
>> *This content is prepared for inclusion in the March 2013 Wikimedia
>> Foundation
>> report<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Report,_March_2013>.
>> It is a shorter and simpler version of the full (and English-only)
>> Wikimedia engineering report for March
>> 2013<https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_engineering_report/2013/March>that
>> does not assume specialized technical knowledge.*
>>
>>
>> VisualEditor <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/VisualEditor>
>>
>> *(Accessible introduction to what the Visual Editor
>> is<https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/12/07/inventing-as-we-go-building-a-visual-…>)*
>>
>> In March, part of the team worked on infrastructure for the major new
>> features that they'll be adding in the coming months. We aim for
>> VisualEditor to be the default way all users edit our sites by July
>> 2013, so it needs to let everyone edit the majority of content without
>> needing to use the usual "wikitext" editor. This will mean adding
>> support for references, (at least) basic templates, categories and
>> images, each of which is a very large piece of work. This month the team
>> primarily worked on draft designs and initial code to ensure users can
>> edit categories and templates.
>>
>> The Visual Editor team undertook its first ever "Quarterly
>> Review<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_r…>",
>> whose
>> slides<https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:VisualEditor-Parsoid_-_2012-13_Q3_quart…>detail
>> these designs, the work done to date and expectations for the near
>> future. The alpha version of VisualEditor on mediawiki.org and the
>> English Wikipedia was updated twice, adding better input and selection
>> support, fixing a number of bugs, and restructuring the back-end so that
>> the new features will be simpler to create.
>>
>> The Parsoid <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Parsoid> team (who are
>> creating the parsing program <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsing>
>> that translates plain wikitext into HTML annotated for easy editing, and
>> *vice-versa*) continued writing specifications, fixing bugs, and
>> improving how Parsoid deals with different human languages, newlines and
>> whitespace, and transclusion. And late in March, C. Scott Ananian joined
>> us as a contractor. Welcome!
>>
>>
>> Editor engagement <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/New_editor_engagement>
>>
>> In March, the editor engagement features team worked on three projects:
>> Notifications <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Echo_%28Notifications%29>,
>> Article Feedback
>> <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Version_5> and Flow
>> <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Flow>.
>>
>> For Notifications
>> <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Echo_%28Notifications%29>(formerly
>> called 'Echo'), we developed a range of new features, including:
>> the
>> 'thanks<https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Echo/Feature_requirements#Thank_you_notifica…>'
>> and 'user
>> rights<https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Echo/Feature_requirements#User_rights>'
>> notifications, as well as HTML email
>> notifications<https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Echo/Feature_requirements#HTML_email_digests>.
>> We also started to collect our first
>> metrics<https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Echo/Metrics>and prepared a
>> socialization plan for our upcoming release on the English
>> Wikipedia later this month. You are welcome to test our work-in-progress
>> here on MediaWiki.org <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Echo/Testing>.
>>
>> For Article
>> Feedback<https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Version_5>, we
>> deployed a new version of the tool on the and, for evaluation by their
>> communities. Final features include 'discuss on talk
>> page<https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Version_5/Feature_Requireme…>'
>> and
>> 'auto-archive<https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Version_5/Feature_Requireme…>'.
>> The tool was temporarily turned off on the English Wikipedia, where we
>> expect to re-deploy it on an opt-in basis as soon as practical, as
>> described on this talk
>> page<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_…>.
>>
>> Design work continued on Flow <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Flow>, the
>> upcoming user-to-user discussion system. We continued creating a
>> 'Portal' that will engage discussion about Flow at three locations
>> (mediawiki.org<https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/FlowPortal>,
>> meta, and the English Wikipedia), and performing
>> research<https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Flow_Portal/Research>.
>>
>> The Editor Engagement
>> Experiments<https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Editor_Engagement_Experiments>team
>> largely placed other projects – such as guided tours
>> <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Guided_tours>,
>> EventLogging<https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/EventLogging>,
>> and others – on hold to focus on two key initiatives: the "Getting
>> Started<https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:GettingStarted>"
>> process for onboarding new
>> Wikipedians<https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Onboarding_new_Wikipedians>,
>> and on making the redesign of account creation and
>> login<https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Account_creation_user_experience>a
>> permanent, internationalized part of MediaWiki core.
>>
>> For the Getting Started project, the team launched a new version on
>> English Wikipedia, which included a new landing page with additional
>> types of tasks suggested for brand new editors to try. The list of tasks
>> is now generated by a basic recommender
>> system<https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Onboarding_new_Wikipedians/Recommender_system>built
>> by Ori Livneh, which gathers, filters, and delivered a fresh list of
>> tasks automatically for every editor. This new backend paves the way for
>> releasing the "getting started" feature on other projects, after we've
>> completed data analysis and testing to understand which kinds of tasks
>> are ideal for first time editors. Additionally, Matt Flaschen
>> collaborated with the Editor Engagement Features team to build
>> notifications<https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Echo>to welcome new editors
>> and invite them to contribute via the Getting Started.
>>
>> For the account creation and login work, S Page, Munaf Assaf, and the
>> rest of the team rebuilt our design to work with MediaWiki core, and
>> solicited reviews from outside the team. We currently plan to launch
>> both interface redesigns on an opt-in basis in April, to have editors
>> test the localization and other functional aspects of the forms via a
>> URL parameter, before we enable them as default.
>>
>>
>> Mobile <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Mobile_engineering>
>>
>> We have a stable version of the mobile-optimized website, which everyone
>> on a smartphone uses by default, and we have a beta version that
>> logged-in Wikimedia users can opt to use to see features we're still
>> building. When functionality is polished enough, we promote it from the
>> beta site to the stable site. In March, we added the ability to easily
>> upload<https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/03/11/putting-commons-contributions-in-your…>a
>> lead
>> image<https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/03/28/add-an-image-to-this-article-uploads-…>to
>> articles that lack one in the stable version of the mobile site. We
>> also helped users by giving them a temporary fix to an issue we
>> discovered that made logging in hard or impossible for some users of
>> newer mobile web browsers; that problem had prevented a number of users
>> from being able to upload photos via the mobile site. We are now well on
>> our way to reach our goal of 1000 unique uploaders/month by the end of
>> June 2013. Check out the mobile app dashboard
>> <http://mobile-reportcard.wmflabs.org/> to see mobile contributions via
>> the website and via apps.
>>
>> Also: we've added thumbnails of lead images from articles in the mobile
>> watchlist view, as well as a "last modified" timestamp on articles in
>> the stable version of the mobile site. We are currently focusing on some
>> performance enhancements for the mobile site. In April we will graduate
>> the "uploads dashboard" feature from beta to stable, will further refine
>> our photo upload features, and will let beta site users see and use a
>> feature to identify articles on subjects near your current location.
>>
>> The Mobile team that makes dedicated Wikimedia mobile apps have created
>> an initial version of the Commons photo uploader app for Android; it is
>> available for download in Google Play. The iOS version is still in beta,
>> but should be available in the Apple app store next month.
>>
>> In March, Wikipedia Zero
>> (explanation<https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships>)
>> added new telecom partners (such as Axiata Group
>> Berhad<https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/03/19/axiata-wikipedia-zero-partnership/>),
>> fixed some technical problems, and helped teach new staff how we do
>> things. We also won an SXSW Interactive "Activism" award for Wikipedia
>> Zero<https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/03/13/wikipedia-zero-wins-2013-sxsw-interac…>
>> .
>>
>> Max Semenik, Arthur Richards and Faidon Liambotis held an OpenStreetMaps
>> mini-hackathon at Open Source Days 2013 in
>> Copenhagen<https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Events/Wikimedia_Mapping_Event_2013>.
>> During the event, they agreed on an implementation strategy for a future
>> WMF mapping cluster. The cluster would serve OSM "tiles" and thus help
>> integrate OSM functionality better into Wikimedia sites, and help with
>> our mobile apps which already make use of OSM data.
>>
>>
>> Other useful engineering news
>>
>> - Lua
>> scripting<https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/03/11/lua-templates-faster-more-flexible-pa…>has
>> launched on all WMF wikis, making templates faster and making pages more
>> flexible. You can read that post to understand what to do on your wiki
>> to take advantage of this, and you can also read about the implications
>> for Wikimedia's
>> future<https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/03/14/what-lua-scripting-means-wikimedia-op…>.
>> - We redesigned the Translate
>> interface<https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/03/25/redesigning-the-translation-experienc…>and
>> made other
>> progress<https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/03/12/new-release-of-the-mediawiki-language…>on
>> translation and language-related tools.
>> - We have fresh, friendly instructions on reporting a technical
>> problem<https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/03/18/how-to-create-a-good-first-bug-report/>and
>> invite you to help prioritize problems to
>> fix<https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/03/19/help-wikimedia-squash-software-bugs/>.
>> - Our designers are collaborating with the Noun
>> Project<https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/03/13/the-noun-project-and-the-wikimedia-fo…>towards
>> creating an "Encyclopedia Collection" of free icons.
>> - Our Operations group (the systems administrators who keep our
>> servers running) has started a twice-monthly meeting with other
>> engineering teams, to keep communication flowing about requirements and
>> possible upcoming problems or server needs.
>> - The User Metrics API
>> <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User_Metrics>launched; it's a service
>> that allows researchers to perform cohort analysis
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohort_study> on various data sets,
>> making it easier to measure the effects of programs and platform
>> experiments among discrete sets of users. The Analytics
>> group<https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Analytics>, which works on
>> software to make statistics about Wikimedia available, is currently
>> working on improving the web-based user interface, to make it available
>> for use outside of Wikimedia Foundation staff in the coming months.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikitech-ambassadors mailing list
>> Wikitech-ambassadors(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-ambassadors
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Translators-l mailing list
>> Translators-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/translators-l
> _______________________________________________
> Translators-l mailing list
> Translators-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/translators-l
You're welcome, J-Mo.
I think it would help if there was a Board resolution authorizing the
existence of RCom and outlining its scope and membership. For example, the
membership might be something like 9 members with 3 WMF researchers, 3
content volunteers, 2 outside researchers, and 1 member of the WMF Board,
plus 6 hours a week of WMF administrative support for handling routine
questions and organizing documentation for quick Committee review. Would
you, Aaron or Phoebe like to draft something for the Board to consider, or
does that need to go through the ED first? I agree with other commentators
that having RCOM exist without a clear charter and regular public updates
of its membership and work should be remedied, and I think setting up some
procedures for how consultations happen could address the issue of people
personally approaching you and asking for advice about research projects.
Pine
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Jonathan Morgan <jmorgan(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 7:50 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If RCOM needs more volunteer Wikimedians, the alive and well IEG
>> Committee includes a Research Working Group that reviews grant proposals
>> for WMF funding through the IEG program, so RCOM could reach out to IEGCom.
>> I'm on IEGCom and the RWG but I can't speak for RCOM. (:
>>
>
> Thanks, Pine. I'll likely hold you to that offer ;)
>
>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Kerry Raymond <kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I guess I was not so much thinking of an general invitation to the R&D
>>> Showcase but a specific “expectation” (albeit couched as an invitation) on
>>> those given permission to recruit via WMF channels to give a few short (or
>>> long as appropriate to the stage of their research) talks on their project.
>>> Ditto research projects supported through IEG or similar.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree that OpenSym is available as a research conference but it is not
>>> run by our community and therefore doesn’t help to create a sense of
>>> community with the researchers in question. Wikimania is run by our
>>> community but isn’t a research conference (would not count as a publication
>>> for academic purposes). But I don’t know if it’s realistic to try to
>>> establish another conference in terms of the volunteer effort to run it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kerry
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> *From:* wiki-research-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:
>>> wiki-research-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of *Aaron
>>> Halfaker
>>> *Sent:* Friday, 18 July 2014 1:45 AM
>>>
>>> *To:* Research into Wikimedia content and communities
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Wiki-research-l] discussion about wikipedia surveys
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kerry said:
>>>
>>> Because of the criticism of “not giving back”, could we perhaps do
>>> things to try to make the researcher feel part of the community to make
>>> “giving back” more likely? For example, could we give them a slot every now
>>> and again to talk about their project in the R&D Showcase? Encourage them
>>> to be on this mailing list. Are we at a point where it might make sense to
>>> organise a Wikipedia research conference to help build a research
>>> community? Just thinking aloud here …
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This is a bit different than the main topic, so I wanted to break it out
>>> into another reply.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We just had Nate Matias[0] from the MIT media lab present on his work at
>>> the last showcase[1]. We also just sent out a survey about the showcase
>>> that includes a call for recommended speakers at future showcases[2]. As
>>> for a Wikipedia research conference, see OpenSym[3] (formerly WikiSym) and
>>> Wikimania[4] (not as researchy, but a great venue to maximize wiki research
>>> impact).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 0. http://natematias.com/
>>>
>>> 1.
>>> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Analytics/Research_and_Data/Showcase#July_20…
>>>
>>> 2.
>>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/2014-July/003574.html
>>>
>>> 3. http://www.opensym.org/os2014/
>>>
>>> 4. https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Aaron Halfaker <
>>> aaron.halfaker(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Aaron, when I read that it is active because I had heard from others
>>> in your team about a year or two ago that this wasn't going to be the
>>> vehicle for obtaining permission going forward and that a new, more
>>> lightweight process was being designed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 1) If anyone told you that we are no longer active, they were wrong.
>>>
>>> 2) The "lightweight" process you refer to is what I linked to in enwiki
>>> in my previous response. See again:
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Research_recruitment
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Generally, there seems to be a misconception that RCom == paid WMF
>>> activities. While RCom involves a relationship with the Wikimedia
>>> Foundation, our activities as part of RCom are 100% volunteer and open to
>>> participation from other Wikipedians (seriously, let me know if you want to
>>> help out!), and as such, our backlog tends to suffer when our available
>>> volunteer time does. FWIW, I became involved in this work as a volunteer
>>> (before I started working with the WMF). With that in mind, it seems like
>>> we are not discussing RCom itself which is mostly inactive -- so much as we
>>> are discussing the subject recruitment review process which is still
>>> active. Let me state this clearly: *If you send an email to me or
>>> Dario about a research project that you would like reviewed, we will help
>>> you coordinate a review. *Our job as review coordinators is to make
>>> sure that the study is adequately documented and that Wikipedians and other
>>> researchers are pulled in to discuss the material. We don't just welcome
>>> broad involvement -- we need it! We all suffer from the lack of it.
>>> Please show up help us!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To give you some context on the current stats and situation, I should
>>> probably give a bit of history. I've been working to improve subject
>>> recruitment review -- with the goal of improving interactions between
>>> researchers and Wikipedians -- for years. Let me first say that *I'm
>>> game to make this better.* In my experience, the biggest issue to
>>> documenting the a review/endorsement/whatever process that I have come
>>> across is this: there seems to be a lot of people who feel that minimizing *process
>>> description* provides power and adaptability to intended processes[1].
>>> It's these people that I've regularly battled in my frequent efforts to
>>> increase the formalization around the subject recruitment proposal vetting
>>> process (e.g. SRAG had a structured appeals process and stated timelines).
>>> The result of these battles is the severely under-documented process
>>> "described" in meta:R:FAQ <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:FAQ>
>>> .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Here's some links to my previous work on subject recruitment process
>>> that will show these old discussions about process creep
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_instruction_creep>.
>>>
>>> ·
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Subject_Recruitment_Approvals_Group
>>>
>>> o
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Subject_Recruitment_Approvals_…
>>>
>>> ·
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Research&oldid=3546001…
>>>
>>> o https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Research/Archive_1
>>>
>>> o https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Research/Archive_2 --
>>> Note that this was actually an *enwiki policy* for about 5 hours before
>>> the RfC was overturned due to too few editors being involved in the straw
>>> poll.
>>>
>>> For new work, see my current (but stalled for about 1.5 years) push for
>>> a structured process on English Wikipedia.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Research_recruitment See also
>>> the checklist I have been working on with Lane.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Research_recruitment/Wikipedian_che…
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> When you review these docs and the corresponding conversations, please
>>> keep in mind that I was a new Wikipedian for the development of WP:SRAG and
>>> WP:Research, so I made some really critical mistakes -- like taking
>>> hyperbolic criticism of the proposals personally. :\
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So what now? Well, in the meantime, if you let me know about some
>>> subject recruitment you want to do, I'll help you find someone to
>>> coordinate a review that fits within the process described in the RCom
>>> docs. In the short term, are any of you folks interested in going through
>>> some iterations of the new WP:Research_recruitment policy doc?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Aaron
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 2:38 AM, Heather Ford <hfordsa(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Agree with Kerry that we really need to have a more flexible process
>>> that speaks to the main problem that (I think) RCOM was started to solve
>>> i.e. that Wikipedians were getting tired of being continually contacted by
>>> researchers to fill out *surveys*. I'm not sure where feelings are about
>>> that right now (I certainly haven't seen a huge amount of surveys myself)
>>> but I guess the big question right now is whether RCOM is actually active
>>> or not. I must say that I was surprised, Aaron, when I read that it is
>>> active because I had heard from others in your team about a year or two ago
>>> that this wasn't going to be the vehicle for obtaining permission going
>>> forward and that a new, more lightweight process was being designed. As
>>> Nathan discusses on the Wikimedia-l list, there aren't many indications
>>> that RCOM is still active. Perhaps there has been a recent decision to
>>> resuscitate it? If that's the case, let us know about it :) And then we can
>>> discuss what needs to happen to build a good process.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> One immediate requirement that I've been talking to others about is
>>> finding ways of making the case to the WMF as a group of researchers for
>>> the anonymization of country level data, for example. I've spoken to a few
>>> researchers (and I myself made a request about a year ago that hasn't been
>>> responded to) and it seems like some work is required by the foundation to
>>> do this anonymisation but that there are a few of us who would be really
>>> keen to use this data to produce research very valuable to Wikipedia -
>>> especially from smaller language versions/developing countries. Having an
>>> official process that assesses how worthwhile this investment of time would
>>> be to the Foundation would be a great idea, I think, but right now there
>>> seems to be a general focus on the research that the Foundation does itself
>>> rather than enabling researchers outside. I know how busy Aaron and Dario
>>> (and others in the team) are so perhaps this requires a new position to
>>> coordinate between researchers and Foundation resources?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Anyway, I think the big question right now is whether there are any
>>> plans for RCOM that have been made by the research team and the only people
>>> who can answer that are folks in the research team :)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Heather.
>>>
>>>
>>> Heather Ford
>>> Oxford Internet Institute <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk> Doctoral Programme
>>> EthnographyMatters <http://ethnographymatters.net> | Oxford Digital
>>> Ethnography Group <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=115>
>>> http://hblog.org | @hfordsa <http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 17 July 2014 08:49, Kerry Raymond <kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, I meant the community/communities of WMF. But the authority of the
>>> community derives from WMF, which chooses to delegate such matters. I think
>>> that “advise” is a good word to use.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kerry
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> *From:* Amir E. Aharoni [mailto:amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il]
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, 17 July 2014 5:37 PM
>>> *To:* kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com; Research into Wikimedia content and
>>> communities
>>>
>>>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Wiki-research-l] discussion about wikipedia surveys
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > WMF does not "own" me as a contributor; it does not decide who can
>>> and cannot recruit me for whatever purposes.
>>>
>>> I don't think that it really should be about WMF. The WMF shouldn't
>>> enforce anything. The community can formulate good practices for
>>> researchers and _advise_ community members not to cooperate with
>>> researchers who don't follow these practices. Not much more is needed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
>>> http://aharoni.wordpress.com
>>> “We're living in pieces,
>>> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2014-07-17 8:24 GMT+03:00 Kerry Raymond <kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com>:
>>>
>>> Just saying here what I already put on the Talk page:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am a little bothered by the opening sentence "This page documents the
>>> process that researchers must follow before asking Wikipedia contributors
>>> to participate in research studies such as surveys, interviews and
>>> experiments."
>>>
>>> WMF does not "own" me as a contributor; it does not decide who can and
>>> cannot recruit me for whatever purposes. What WMF does own is its
>>> communication channels to me as a contributor and WMF has a right to
>>> control what occurs on those channels. Also I think WMF probably should be
>>> concerned about both its readers and its contributors being recruited
>>> through its channels (as either might be being recruited). I think this
>>> distinction should be made, e.g.
>>>
>>> "This page documents the process that researchers must follow if they
>>> wish to use Wikipedia's (WMF's?) communication channels to recruit people
>>> to participate in research studies such as surveys, interviews and
>>> experiments. Communication channels include its mailing lists, its Project
>>> pages, Talk pages, and User Talk pages [and whatever else I've forgotten]."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If researchers want to recruit WPians via non-WMF means, I don’t think
>>> it’s any business of WMF’s. An example might be a researcher who wanted to
>>> contact WPians via chapters or thorgs; I would leave it for the
>>> chapter/thorg to decide if they wanted to assist the researcher via their
>>> communication channels.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course, the practical reality of it is that some researchers
>>> (oblivious of WMF’s concerns in relation to recruitment of WPians to
>>> research projects) will simply use WMF’s channels without asking nicely
>>> first. Obviously we can remove such requests on-wiki and follow up any
>>> email requests with the commentary that this was not an approved request.
>>> In my category of [whatever else I’ve forgotten], I guess there are things
>>> like Facebook groups and any other social media presence.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Also to be practical, if WMF is to have a process to vet research
>>> surveys, I think it has to be sufficiently fast and not be overly demanding
>>> to avoid the possibility of the researcher giving up (“too hard to deal
>>> with these people”) and simply spamming email, project pages, social media
>>> in the hope of recruiting some participants regardless. That is, if we make
>>> it too slow/hard to do the right thing, we effectively encourage doing the
>>> wrong thing. Also, what value-add can we give them to reward those who do
>>> the right thing? It’s nice to have a carrot as well as a stick when it
>>> comes to onerous processes J
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Because of the criticism of “not giving back”, could we perhaps do
>>> things to try to make the researcher feel part of the community to make
>>> “giving back” more likely? For example, could we give them a slot every now
>>> and again to talk about their project in the R&D Showcase? Encourage them
>>> to be on this mailing list. Are we at a point where it might make sense to
>>> organise a Wikipedia research conference to help build a research
>>> community? Just thinking aloud here …
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kerry
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> *From:* wiki-research-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:
>>> wiki-research-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of *Aaron
>>> Halfaker
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, 17 July 2014 6:59 AM
>>> *To:* Research into Wikimedia content and communities
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Wiki-research-l] discussion about wikipedia surveys
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> RCOM review is still alive and looking for new reviewers (really,
>>> coordinators). Researchers can be directed to me or Dario (
>>> dtaraborelli(a)wikimedia.org) to be assigned a reviewer. There is also a
>>> proposed policy on enwiki that could use some eyeballs:
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Research_recruitment
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <
>>> nemowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> phoebe ayers, 16/07/2014 19:21:
>>>
>>> > (Personally, I think the answer should be to resuscitate RCOM, but
>>> > that's easy to say and harder to do!)
>>>
>>> IMHO in the meanwhile the most useful thing folks can do is subscribing
>>> to the feed of new research pages:
>>> <
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:NewPages&feed=atom&hid…
>>> >
>>> It's easier to build a functioning RCOM out of an active community of
>>> "reviewers", than the other way round.
>>>
>>> Nemo
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Jonathan T. Morgan
> Learning Strategist
> Wikimedia Foundation
> User:Jmorgan (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)>
> jmorgan(a)wikimedia.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
