Agreed. Improved engagement models are essential to taking advantage of academic work. See all the edits I've done on Meta for efforts in this direction. :) Personal: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/EpochFail Staff: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Halfak_(WMF)
See also research hackathons we have organized: - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Labs2/Hackathons/August_6-7th,_2014 - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Labs2/Hackathons/November_9th,_2013 -Aaron On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Pine W <[email protected]> wrote: > That does answer the question, but the difficulty is that I see few > editors looking to research for guidance about how to improve Wikipedia. > The prevailing approach, in my observation, is wikilawyering, and most > editors seem more interested in changing content or discussing policy than > in looking at social media research. I think it would help to have more > proactive engagement with the communitty about research outcomes and > suggestions for implementation. > > Pine > On Oct 16, 2014 2:24 PM, "Aaron Halfaker" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I think that's dependent on the research project. In the Human-Computer >> Interaction research community, we tend to highlight "Implications for >> Design" in the conclusion of a study(see page 9 of [1] for an example from >> my work). In the case of democratized research resources, I would like >> editors to make use of analytics tools. I assume that these editors would >> then be the means of on-wiki change. Does that answer your question? If >> not, I'm not sure I understand it. >> >> 1. >> http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/Snuggle/halfaker14snuggle-preprint.pdf >> >> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Pine W <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I'm curious, what is the plan for transforming research outcomes into >>> actionable proposals for on-wiki change? >>> >>> Pine >>> On Oct 16, 2014 10:54 AM, "Dan Andreescu" <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> If I'm right, then it is important that we experiment with strategies >>>>> for reinforcing/jump-starting Wikipedia's adaptive systems. One way to do >>>>> that is to make it easier for editors to reflect on current trends. I'd >>>>> like to think that integrating research practice into wiki culture (what >>>>> I've been trying to do with all my work) is one way to do that. But it >>>>> would be better if people don't need wait on me and other WMF researchers >>>>> to finish a study. We'd all fare better if access to research materials >>>>> was democratized. That's the reason I am really excited about projects >>>>> like quarry.wmflabs.org (run SQL against Wikipedia's DBs from your >>>>> browser). >>>>> >>>> >>>> And that, in turn, is exactly why I'm really excited about our efforts >>>> to simplify the schema that this data is presented in, so tools like quarry >>>> can be even more approachable by folks, even those unfamiliar with SQL. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Analytics mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Analytics mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Analytics mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Analytics mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics > >
_______________________________________________ Analytics mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
