Search results for query "from:"Federico Leva""

3351 messages

Re: [Wiki-research-l] discussion about wikipedia surveys

by Heather Ford

+1! 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 19 July 2014 08:37, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > >

10 years, 5 months

Jump to page: