Hello everyone. We started the conversation with Phoebe about the
possibility of a "research-oriented toolserver" that could be used by
researchers who wish to explore novel gadgets or other tools for
Wikipedia users. The toolserver could provide back-end support for
these gadgets.
By the phrase "research-oriented toolserver" we are looking for
similar services to what is available in the existing toolserver
cluster. From what we've heard of the research infrastructures being
developed at Syracuse and Concordia, they will be valuable for
researchers who are in need of full text data access on a large scale.
The research toolserver, by contrast, would be for tools that need
"live" access to Wikipedia databases, but that would only access the
full text on a small scale through the Wikipedia API.
The major difference from our perspective is how applications for new
accounts would be handled. Our idea is to be able to hand out
accounts based around the likelihood of effective research, rather
than on visibility within Wikipedia, or on the usefulness of the
resulting tool to the larger Wikipedia community. The latter two
cases are already handled well by the existing toolserver and its
application process. Accounts on the research toolserver would be
approved based on the quality of the research ideas, and the ability
of the proposing team to carry out the research.
The research toolserver would need a more transparent decision-making
process for approving accounts. The basis for decisions should be
clear to applicants so they're able to write better applications, and
denied applications should be returned with feedback about why the
decision was made.
What do you think? Seem like a useful idea if we can find sufficient
resources, and put together a management plan?
Morten Warncke-Wang, Research Assistant
John Riedl, Professor
GroupLens Research
www.grouplens.org