On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 7:57 PM, Fuster, Mayo Mayo.Fuster@eui.eu wrote:
Hello!
Thank you Heather for the note!. The call looks interesting to me, but I would suggest to add gender inclusion as a topic at the call for paper, as it is a central problem in Wikipedia.
+1
Mark Graham and I are co-chairs of the Wikipedia Track at next year's WikiSym conference (now with added OpenSym!) and we're preparing the call for papers to go out Friday week.
This might sound like a strawman proposal, or facetious or something, but it's not. Let's simply call it a crazy subversive proposal. How about organizing the Wikipedia Track as an anti-Wikipedia track?
There has been such great discussion on this list in the past about what is currently missing from Wikipedia research
Yes, and this is a major sub-point: the main thing missing from Wikipedia research is non-Wikipedia research.
One notable exception, I think, is Benjamin Mako Hill's "Almost Wikipedia" talk. But I think this talk only starts a process of inquiry. It's not just "failed Wikipedias" but "successful non-Wikipedias" that need to be highlighted and compared to Wikipedia itself.
In short, the purpose would be to engage in scholarly, "inciteful", Wikipedia-bashing. What is irreparably flawed in the design? (More politely: if we were to do it all over again, what would we do differently?) Why is it so unappealing to potential women editors (per above)? What are the other outstanding failures of Wikipedia?
Along with this initiative, I suggest inviting Domas Mituzas (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fuzheado/228629484/) to give a keynote.