[Wiki-research-l] Re: Generation gap widens between admins and other editors on the English Wikipedia.

[Samuel Klein]

The iron law of gaps...

On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 5:44 PM The Cunctator  wrote:

> IMHO: The amount of jargon and legalistic booby traps to navigate now to
> become an admin is gargantuan, and there isn't a strong investment in a
> development ladder.


Yes.  More generally, a shift towards a Nupedia model (elaborate seven-step
processes, focus on quality, focus on knowing lots of precedent and not
making mistakes, spending more time justifying actions than making them) is
making sweeping, mopping, and bureaucracy generally more work, less fun,
and more exclusionary.

Perhaps asking everyone to adopt someone new, or sticking "provisional"
tags on a family of palette-swap roles that are Really Truly NBD
 We Mean It This Time, would help stave
off the iron law in a repeatable
 way//

SJ
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to wiki-research-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wiki-research-l] Re: [Announcement] A new formal collaboration in Research

[Samuel Klein]

My interest is in the subset of superusers who spend thousands of hours
caring about readability, who tend to gravitate towards entire projects
like wikikids or simple .  This is different from the value of
measuring readability of all articles across many languages.  But it points
to an area where there are many people eager to get to work, except they
lack a way to add a more-readable version of an article without arguing
with everyone else who might have other use cases in mind (some of which
may call for a less readable but more technically complet article).

We need both (a way to have multiple levels of readability of a single
article) and (a way to measure readability of any particular [version of
an] article) to bridge the gap you're addressing :)

On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 9:57 AM Martin Gerlach 
wrote:

> Hi Samuel,
> thanks for your interest in this project.
> Following up on your question, I want to share some additional background:
> This work is part of our updated research roadmap to address knowledge gaps
> [1], specifically, developing methods to measure different knowledge gaps
> [2]. We have identified readability as one of the gaps in the taxonomy of
> knowledge gaps [3]. However, we currently do not have the tools to
> systematically measure readability of Wikipedia articles across languages.
> Therefore, we would like to develop and validate a multilingual approach to
> measuring readability. Furthermore, the community wishlist from the
> previous year contained a proposal for a tool to surface readability scores
> [4]; while acknowledging that this is a difficult task to scale to all
> languages in Wikipedia.
> Let me know if you have further comments, suggestions, or questions --
> happy to discuss in more detail.
> Best,
> Martin
>
>
> [1]
>
> https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/04/21/a-new-research-roadmap-for-addressing-knowledge-gaps/
> [2]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Knowledge_Gaps_3_Years_On#Measure_Knowledge_Gaps
> [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Knowledge_Gaps_Index/Taxonomy
> [4]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Wishlist_Survey_2022/Bots_and_gadgets/Readability_scores_gadget
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 10:50 PM Samuel Klein  wrote:
>
> > Fantastic.  What a great teamn to work with.
> >
> > We definitely need multiple reading-levels for articles, which involves
> > some namespace & interface magic, and new norm settings around what is
> > possible.  Only a few language projects have managed to bolt this onto
> the
> > side of MediaWiki (though they include some excellent successes imo).
> >  Where does that fit into the research-practice-MW-WP roadmap?
> >
> > SJ
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 12:13 PM Martin Gerlach 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > The Research team at the Wikimedia Foundation has officially started a
> > new
> > > Formal Collaboration [1] with Indira Sen, Katrin Weller, and Mareike
> > > Wieland from GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences to work
> > > collaboratively on understanding perception of readability in Wikipedia
> > [2]
> > > as part of the Addressing Knowledge Gaps Program [3]. We are thankful
> to
> > > them for agreeing to spend their time and expertise on this project in
> > the
> > > coming year.
> > >
> > > Here are a few pieces of information about this collaboration that we
> > would
> > > like to share with you:
> > > * We aim to keep the research documentation for this project in the
> > > corresponding research page on meta [2].
> > > * Research tasks are hard to break down and track in task-tracking
> > systems.
> > > This being said, the page on meta is linked to an Epic level
> Phabricator
> > > task and all tasks related to this project that can be captured on
> > > Phabricator will be captured under here [4].
> > > * I act as the point of contact for this research in the Wikimedia
> > > Foundation. Please feel free to reach out to me (directly, if it cannot
> > be
> > > shared publicly) if you have comments or questions about the project.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Martin
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Formal_collaborations
> > > [2]
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Understanding_perception_of_readability_in_Wikipedia
> > > [3] https://research.wikimedia.org/knowledge-gaps.html
> > > [4] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T325815
> > >
> > > --
> > > Martin Gerlach (he

[Wiki-research-l] Re: [Announcement] A new formal collaboration in Research

[Samuel Klein]

Fantastic.  What a great teamn to work with.

We definitely need multiple reading-levels for articles, which involves
some namespace & interface magic, and new norm settings around what is
possible.  Only a few language projects have managed to bolt this onto the
side of MediaWiki (though they include some excellent successes imo).
 Where does that fit into the research-practice-MW-WP roadmap?

SJ

On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 12:13 PM Martin Gerlach 
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> The Research team at the Wikimedia Foundation has officially started a new
> Formal Collaboration [1] with Indira Sen, Katrin Weller, and Mareike
> Wieland from GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences to work
> collaboratively on understanding perception of readability in Wikipedia [2]
> as part of the Addressing Knowledge Gaps Program [3]. We are thankful to
> them for agreeing to spend their time and expertise on this project in the
> coming year.
>
> Here are a few pieces of information about this collaboration that we would
> like to share with you:
> * We aim to keep the research documentation for this project in the
> corresponding research page on meta [2].
> * Research tasks are hard to break down and track in task-tracking systems.
> This being said, the page on meta is linked to an Epic level Phabricator
> task and all tasks related to this project that can be captured on
> Phabricator will be captured under here [4].
> * I act as the point of contact for this research in the Wikimedia
> Foundation. Please feel free to reach out to me (directly, if it cannot be
> shared publicly) if you have comments or questions about the project.
>
> Best,
> Martin
>
> [1]
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Formal_collaborations
> [2]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Understanding_perception_of_readability_in_Wikipedia
> [3] https://research.wikimedia.org/knowledge-gaps.html
> [4] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T325815
>
> --
> Martin Gerlach (he/him) | Senior Research Scientist | Wikimedia Foundation
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to wiki-research-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>


-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to wiki-research-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wiki-research-l] Re: What's your favorite text about general research frameworks?

[Samuel Klein]

Much research lately studies current communities of X (say, Wikipedians),
as something like a finite-game within the relatively stable and
self-limiting framework set up by X once it became an institution (say, the
post-2007 framework of WP and sibling projects).

I haven't seen as much research into the infinite-game aspect: the
generation and seeding of projects with self-governing wiki nature
<https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki-Prinzip>. Offline examples might
include large-scale short-notice events, incl. some festivals, disaster
relief, mass migration + rebuilding.

Scaling often involves building tools, but seeing the community and its
work tools through the lens of whatever tools persist,  in communities that
survive long enough to be studied, can have two levels of survivorship bias
built in.  There may be a lot of subcommunities, mindsets, and tools that
are essential to pulling off a broad collaboration, but are just a phase.
One framework is to ground observations of a surviving group by
studying the many similar efforts that fail
<https://mako.cc/academic/hill-almost_wikipedia-DRAFT.pdf>.

I wonder if there are good examples of Stu's approach or others applied to
the genesis of such communities. Or communities that explicitly try to seed
and propagate new projects like them, which are then studied from the
start.

//S



On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 11:28 AM Andrew Green  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I hope this is the right place to ask this question!
>
> I was wondering if folks who are doing (or are interested in) research
> about Wikipedia might like to share texts that they feel best describe
> the general research frameworks they use (or might like to use).
>
> I'd love to hear about any texts you like, regardless of format
> (textbook, paper, general reference, blog post, etc.).
>
> It seems a lot of work about Wikipedia uses approaches from
> Computational Social Science. The main references I have for that are
> [1] and [2].
>
> I'm especially interested in links between Computational Social Science
> and frameworks from more traditional social sciences and cognitive science.
>
> Many thanks in advance! :) Cheers,
> Andrew
>
> [1] Cioffi-Revilla, C. (2017) /Introduction to Computational Social
> Science. Principles and Applications. Second Edition./ Cham,
> Switzerland: Springer.
>
> [2] Melnik, R. (ed.) (2015)/Mathematical and Computational Modeling.
> With Applications in Natural and Social Sciences, Engineering, and the
> Arts/. Hoboken, U.S.A.: Wiley.
>
> --
> Andrew Green (he/him)
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to wiki-research-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>


-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to wiki-research-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wiki-research-l] [OW] fixing performance regressions before they happen

[Samuel Klein]

An interesting post from the Netflix team, workflow and analysis may be of
general interest. I'm not sure what research of this sort we have on W*
performance benchmarks over time ~~

https://netflixtechblog.com/fixing-performance-regressions-before-they-happen-eab2602b86fe


___
Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to wiki-research-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wiki-research-l] Re: The Wikimedia Foundation Research Award of the Year - Call for Nominations

[Samuel Klein]

My post was sharded to just the wikidata list, copying the others :)

On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 12:59 PM Patricio Lorente <
patricio.lore...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thank you, SJ. I fully agree with your recommendations.
>
> El jue, 13 ene 2022 a las 14:55, Samuel Klein ()
> escribió:
>
>> Kay, bless your heart.
>> Galder, Gereon, Xavi: I would be *particularly* interested in research
>> in other languages, since it's harder for me to run across that in my
>> regular feeds. (that may also be true for some of the reviewers :) but
>> they're also lang and time limited)
>>
>> Recommendation that might conceivably be implemented for this cycle:
>>  -- Update "can submit" to "encouraged to submit" in any languages
>>  -- If in a language other than {core langs} <-- which may be only
>> English this year, ask submitters to recommend a reviewer who can share a
>> review of the work in English
>>  -- To Andy's point, confirm the license of the research is one that is
>> open (so that it can be independently translated)
>>  -- Have a two stage award: the first stage, based on a quick review for
>> significance and interest, identifies finalists which are, if not already
>> in one of the {core langs}, translated into one of them. (at least in
>> abstract + summary; we facilitate this translation by supporting /
>> sponsoring community translation; it's a universal benefit for researchers
>> around the world)
>>  -- Second stage is as currently imagined: review of finalist papers in
>> {core langs}.
>>
>> <3.  SJ
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 10:27 PM KAY WOODING via Wikidata <
>> wikid...@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>
>>>  I SPEAK ENGLISH  THABKS I APPRECIATE IT  JESUS LOVES YIU I LOVE YOU GOD
>>> BLESS YOU  HAVE A BLESSED DAY
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, January 12, 2022, 09:55:21 PM EST, Leila Zia <
>>> l...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> We gave the option of accepting nominations in more languages some
>>> more thought. I want to be very honest: I don't have a good solution
>>> to accommodate more languages in this cycle. We considered the option
>>> of allowing/encouraging nominations in other languages, and not doing
>>> the broader search we do in English in those languages. However, even
>>> this option is not really guaranteed to work because we consider
>>> "scholarly publications" which can be papers of a few pages or books
>>> that can be hundreds of pages. We cannot guarantee that we can
>>> translate the scholarly publication (independent of its length)
>>> in-time for the review.
>>>
>>> Given the above, my suggestion to you is that if you know of a
>>> scholarly publication that is in another language than English and you
>>> think we should consider it, still nominate it. We will consider it,
>>> even if I can't guarantee that we review it.
>>>
>>> I'm sorry that I am not able to offer a better solution for this
>>> cycle. We will continue thinking about this point for the future
>>> cycles.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Leila
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 12:46 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
>>>  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hi Leila,
>>> > I have read it, that's why I'm confused.
>>> > 
>>> > From: Leila Zia 
>>> > Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 9:40 PM
>>> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
>>> > Cc: wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org <
>>> wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>; Discussion list for the Wikidata
>>> project. 
>>> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: [Wiki-research-l] Re: The Wikimedia
>>> Foundation Research Award of the Year - Call for Nominations
>>> >
>>> > Hi Galder,
>>> >
>>> > Please see below.
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 12:26 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
>>> >  wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > Thanks, Leila, for answering the question raised.
>>> >
>>> > Anytime.
>>> >
>>> > > I'm a bit confused with this, I supposed that the Wikimedia
>>> Foundation Research Award was an initiative from the Research team of the
>>> WMF (https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research), but I read in
>>> your answer that "WikiResearch is primarily in English and about research
>>> published in English". I under

[Wiki-research-l] Re: [Events] Adding context to fact-checking and role of Wikipedia as a vector for credible information

[Samuel Klein]

Looks amazing; thanks for sharing!

On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 4:34 PM Ahmed Medien  wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> *This is an event in Spanish*
>
> I wanted to share with you an event organized with Wikimedians from Mexico,
> Luis Alvaz and Jose Flores as well as a journalist from Ecuador Chequa
> - Alliwa Pazmiño.
>
> *When*
> Friday, May 28th, 12 pm ET
>
> *Where*
> Zoom: This is the link to register for the event:
> https://forms.gle/rwDwoThLZ6tduyxv8
>
> *What is it*
> The event brings together professionals from the news world and wiki
> movement to talk about challenges within current news and online
> information ecosystem in "Latin America" (countries represented here are
> Ecuador and Mexico) as well as the role of Wikipedia as a vector for
> credible, verified, fact-checked information to mass audiences in these
> crucial times (Covid, elections, heightened partisanship).
>
>
> *You can find speakers info and description of the event
> here: https://bit.ly/3uOm57T <https://bit.ly/3uOm57T>*
>
> As always, I welcome and appreciate the participation from Wikipedians to
> add to the talking points during the event, challenge them. This event is
> going to be a lightening presentations style event + Q
>
> Best,
>
> A
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to wiki-research-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>


-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to wiki-research-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Research Showcase] March 17: Curiosity

[Samuel Klein]

I was *so* hoping this was going to be about the Machine Queen of Mars
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curiosity_(rover)>.
But this looks amazing too...

On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 3:50 PM Janna Layton  wrote:

> In this showcase, Prof. Danielle Bassett will present recent work studying
> individual and collective curiosity as network building processes using
> Wikipedia.
>
> Date/Time: March 17, 16:30 UTC (9:30am PT/12:30pm ET/17:30pm CET)
> Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jw2s_Y4J2tI
>
> Speaker: Danielle Bassett (University of Pennsylvania)
>
> Title: The curious human
>
> Abstract: The human mind is curious. It is strange, remarkable, and
> mystifying; it is eager, probing, questioning. Despite its pervasiveness
> and its relevance for our well-being, scientific studies of human curiosity
> that bridge both the organ of curiosity and the object of curiosity remain
> in their infancy. In this talk, I will integrate historical, philosophical,
> and psychological perspectives with techniques from applied mathematics and
> statistical physics to study individual and collective curiosity. In the
> former, I will evaluate how humans walk on the knowledge network of
> Wikipedia during unconstrained browsing. In doing so, we will capture
> idiosyncratic forms of curiosity that span multiple millennia, cultures,
> languages, and timescales. In the latter, I will consider the fruition of
> collective curiosity in the building of scientific knowledge as encoded in
> Wikipedia. Throughout, I will make a case for the position that individual
> and collective curiosity are both network building processes, providing a
> connective counterpoint to the common acquisitional account of curiosity in
> humans.
>
> Related papers:
>
> Hunters, busybodies, and the knowledge network building associated with
> curiosity. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/undy4
>
> The network structure of scientific revolutions.
> http://arxiv.org/abs/2010.08381
>
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Showcase#March_2021
>
> --
> Janna Layton (she/her)
> Administrative Associate - Product & Technology
> Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: wikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>


-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Knowledge Graphs in Action: Oct 6, 2020

[Samuel Klein]

That looks awesome Sebastian, thanks for sharing.



On Wed., Jul. 29, 2020, 5:30 a.m. Sebastian Hellmann, <
pr-a...@informatik.uni-leipzig.de> wrote:

> Apologies for cross-posting
>
> Dear all,
> Due to current circumstances, the SEMANTiCS Onsite Conference 2020 had,
> unfortunately, to be postponed till September 2021. To bridge the gap
> until 2021, DBpedia, the Platform Linked Data Netherlands (PLDN) and
> EuroSDR will organize a SEMANTiCS satellite event online, on October 6,
> 2020. We set up an exciting themed program around ‘Knowledge Graphs in
> Action: DBpedia, Linked Geodata and Geo-information Integration’. This
> new event is a combination of two already existing ones: the DBpedia
> Community Meeting, which is regularly held as part of the SEMANTiCS, and
> the annual Spatial Linked Data conference organised by EuroSDR and PLDN.
> We fused both together and as a bonus, we added a track about
> Geo-information Integration hosted by EuroSDR. For the joint opening
> session, we recruited four amazing keynote speakers to kick the event off.
>
> # Quick Facts
> - Web URL:https://wiki.dbpedia.org/meetings/KnowledgeGraphsInAction
> - When: October 6, 2020
> - Where: The conference will take place fully online.
>
> # Highlights
> - Hackathon (starts 2 weeks earlier)
> - Keynote by Carsten Hoyer-Klick, German Aerospace Center
> - Keynote by Marinos Kavouras, National Technical University of Athens
> (NTUA)
> - Keynote by Peter Mooney, Maynooth University
> - Keynote by Krzysztof Janowicz, University of California
> - Spatial Linked Data Country Session
> - DBpedia Chapter Session
> - Self Service GIS Session
> - DBpedia Member Showcase Session
>
> # Registration
> - Attending the conference is free. Registration is required though.
> Please register here to be part of the meeting:
> https://wiki.dbpedia.org/meetings/KnowledgeGraphsInAction
>
> # Program
> - Please check the schedule for the upcoming Knowledge Graphs in Action
> event here: https://wiki.dbpedia.org/meetings/KnowledgeGraphsInAction
>
> # Organisation
> - Benedicte Bucher, University Gustave Eiffel, IGN, EuroSDR
> - Erwin Folmer, Kadaster, University of Twente, Platform Linked Data
> Netherlands
> - Rob Lemmens, University of Twente
> - Sebastian Hellmann, AKSW/KILT, DBpedia Association
> - Julia Holze, InfAI, DBpedia Association
> - Joep Crompvoets, KU Leuven
> - Peter Mooney, Maynooth University
>
> With kind regards,
>
> The KGiA Organization Team
>
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] 3rd CfP: SEMANTiCS 2020 EU || Sep 7 - 10, 2020 || Amsterdam, The Netherlands

[Samuel Klein]

The detailed Call for Poster and Demos papers is available
> online.
>
> == Industry and Use Case Track ==
> Focusing strongly on industry needs and ground breaking technology
> trends SEMANTICS invites presentations on enterprise solutions that deal
> with semantic processing of data and/or information. A special focus of
> Semantics 2019 will be on the convergence of machine learning techniques
> and knowledge graphs. Additional topics of interest are Enterprise
> Knowledge Graphs, Semantic AI & Machine Learning, Enterprise Data
> Integration, Linked Data & Data Publishing, Semantic Search,
> Recommendation Services, Thesaurus and/or Ontology Management, Text
> Mining, Data Mining and any related fields. All submissions should have
> a strong focus on real-world applications beyond the prototypical stage
> and demonstrate the power of semantic systems!
>
> = Important Dates:
> * Paper Submission Deadline:May 25, 2020 (11:59
> pm,Hawaii time)
> * Notification of Acceptance: June 15, 2020 (11:59 pm,
> Hawaii time)
> * Camera-Ready Presentation: August 24, 2020 (11:59
> pm, Hawaii time)
>
> Submit your presentations here:
> http://2020-eu.semantics.cc/submission-industry-presentations
>
> == Workshops and Tutorials ==
> Workshops and Tutorials at SEMANTiCS 2018 allow your organisation or
> project to advance and promote your topics and gain increased
> visibility. The workshops and tutorials will provide a forum for
> presenting widely recognised contributions and findings to a diverse and
> knowledgeable community. Furthermore, the event can be used as a
> dissemination activity in the scope of large research projects or as a
> closed format for research and commercial project consortia meetings.
>
> = Important Dates for Workshops:
> * Proposals  WS Deadline:March 23, 2020 (11:59 pm,
> Hawaii time)
> * Notification of Acceptance: April 20, 2020 (11:59 pm,
> Hawaii time)
>
>
> = Important Dates for Tutorials (and other meetings, e.g. seminars,
> show-cases, etc., without call for papers):
> * Proposals  Tutorial Deadline:May 11, 2020 (11:59 pm,
> Hawaii time)
> * Notification of Acceptance: June 01, 2020 (11:59
> pm, Hawaii time)
>
> == Special Calls ==
> Special calls or sub-topics are dedicated towards specific topics that
> are of special interest to the SEMANTiCS community. In case we receive a
> sufficient amount of high quality submissions these topics will become
> special tracks within the conference program. For 2020 SEMANTiCS
> Amsterdam encourages submissions to the following sub-topics:
>
> * Special Sub-Topic: Digital Humanities and Cultural Heritage
> * Special Sub-Topic: LegalTech
> * Special Sub-Topic: Blockchain and Semantics
>
> Each sub-topic is managed by a distinct committee and encourages
> submissions from the scientific or industrial domain. Scientific
> submissions will undergo a thorough review process and will be published
> in the conference proceedings in case of acceptance. Industrial
> submissions will be evaluated and selected according to the quality
> criteria of the industry track. We are looking forward to your submissions!
>
> = Read a detailed description of all available calls online:
> https://2020-eu.semantics.cc/calls
>
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>


-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] No. of articles deleted over time

[Samuel Klein]

Since but 26122 has been fixed, any reason not to use the deletion log
instead?

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:27 AM Aaron Halfaker 
wrote:

> Here's a related bit of work:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_article_creation
>
> In this research project, I used a mix of both the deletion log and the
> archive table to get a sense for when pages were being deleted.
>
> Ultimately, I found that the easiest deletion event to operationalize was
> to look at the most recent ar_timestamp for a page in the archive table.
>  I could only go back to 2008 with this metric because the archive table
> didn't exist before then.
>
> The archive table is available in quarry.  See
> https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/38414 for an example query that gets the
> timestamp of an article's last revision.
>
> The logging table is also in quarry.  See
> https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/38415 for an example query that gets
> deletion events.
>
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 2:51 PM Haifeng Zhang 
> wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > Is there an easy way to get the number of articles deleted over time
> > (e.g., month) in Wikipedia?
> >
> > Can I use Quarry? What tables should I use?
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Haifeng Zhang
> > ___
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >
> _______
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>


-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] New paper - Indigenous knowledge on Wikipedia

[Samuel Klein]

On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 10:11 PM Ocean Power 
wrote:

> What about Australian indigenous songs that trace the path of songlines
> that both document collective history and folk knowledge and also
> rhythmically document land contours and other landmarks as a
> map/timeline/travel guide and often compile folkloric and secondary and
> primary knowledge over generations? I'm curious if you think these function
> in some ways as tertiary sources which, at least according to the wiki,
> include "travel guides, field guides, and almanacs." I'm out of my depth
> but enjoying the back and forth here.
>

Hello :)  Sounds like a tertiary source to me, whatever the format.   I
would say instructional, historical, and cataloging stories + songs are
traditional tertiary sources.  As are the maintainers of legal precedent
and local data records.

There are also a few independent dimensions where oral and written
histories tend to differ, which are sometimes confused.  Three at play here:

* *Format*: Seen (video) vs. Spoken (audio) vs. written (text).
   Video or audio are sometimes considered more authentic than text for a
primary source.
* *Verifiability*: Contemporaneously recorded in a lasting medium, vs.
remembered + retransmitted through the memory of recipients
* *Closeness to observation*:  Primary observation / Secondary analysis /
Tertiary compilation
A town elder remembering the town's history is primary; when I develop
my own history based on it (w/o direct experience) and tell it to you, that
is secondary; if you catalog different versions of town histories in an
epic song, that's tertiary (even as your performance of it is a primary
source for your singing style!)

S.
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] New paper - Indigenous knowledge on Wikipedia

[Samuel Klein]

> for.
> >>>>
> >>>> Casemajor N., Gentelet K., Coocoo C. (2019), « Openness, Inclusion and
> >>>> Self-Affirmation: Indigenous knowledge in Open Knowledge Projects »,
> >>>> *Journal
> >>>> of Peer Production*, no13, pp. 1-20.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> More info about the Atikamekw Wikipetcia project and the involvement
> >>>> of Wikimedia Canada:
> >>>>
> >>>> https://ca.wikimedia.org/…/Atikamekw_knowledge,_culture_and…
> >>>> <
> >>>>
> >>
> https://ca.wikimedia.org/wiki/Atikamekw_knowledge,_culture_and_language_in_Wikimedia_projects?fbclid=IwAR1PynlNUrZcRSIIu9WwcKhp0QjE_UqPz2O8_KNZxnsrTGQYKoLyOMuvh10
> >>>>>
> >>>> ___
> >>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >>>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >>>>
> >>> ___
> >>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jan Dittrich
> > UX Design/ Research
> >
> > Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> > Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
> > https://wikimedia.de
> >
> > Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der
> Menschheit
> > teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
> > https://spenden.wikimedia.de
> >
> > Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
> > Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
> unter
> > der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
> > Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
> > ___
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>


-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Propose a Community Growth session at Wikimania before June 1!

[Samuel Klein]

How about ideas focused on building entire new wikis that support and
encourage new communities of contributors?

On Mon., May 13, 2019, 3:00 p.m. Jonathan Morgan, 
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> The Community Growth
>  space at
> Wikimania 2019 is now accepting submissions! The deadline for submission
>  is June 1. See
> below for submission topics and session formats.
>
>
> In the Community Growth space, we will come together for discussions,
> presentations, and workshops that address these questions:
>
>
>-
>
>What is and is not working around attracting and retaining newcomers?
>-
>
>How should Wikimedia activities evolve to help communities grow and
>flourish?
>-
>
>How should our technology and culture evolve to help new populations to
>come online, participate and become community members?
>
>
> *Recommended topics. *While proposals related to all aspects of community
> growth and newcomer experience are welcome, organizing team is particularly
> interested in proposals related to:
>
>
>-
>
>Research on recruitment, activation and retention.
>-
>
>Technological approaches
>-
>
>On- and off-wiki engagement strategies
>-
>
>Supporting diversity and cross-cultural newcomer experiences
>-
>
>Lessons learned from beyond Wikimedia, and
>-
>
>The future of newcomers and editing
>
>
> If you are interested in seeing presentations around additional topics, but
> do not plan to submit a proposal, you can suggest additional topics here
> <
> https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2019:Community_Growth#Topics_suggested_by_community_members
> >.
>
>
> *Types of session.* We prefer sessions that are participatory, interactive,
> promote conversations, and give a voice to parts of our movement that are
> heard less often. We welcome the following session formats:
>
>
>-
>
>Roundtable discussion
>-
>
>Panel discussion
>-
>
>Lightning talk
>-
>
>Working session
>-
>
>Teaching session
>-
>
>Conference presentation
>
>
> *Poster submissions.* Posters are also a good way to introduce a topic, or
> show some results of an action. Please consider submitting one
> !
>
>
> More information about the Community Growth space, topics, and submission
> formats is available on the proposal page
> .
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Jonathan Morgan
>
> On behalf of the Community Growth leadership team
>
> --
> Jonathan T. Morgan
> Senior Design Researcher
> Wikimedia Foundation
> User:Jmorgan (WMF) 
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Transferring CC-BY scientific literature into WP

[Samuel Klein]

A wikisource toolchain for importing articles would be wonderful.
There is no equivalent place for public comments, categorization, and dense
internal linking across such texts.

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 2:36 PM Federico Leva (Nemo) 
wrote:

> Alexandre Hocquet, 17/04/19 20:40:
> > My point is : as it can be imagined that the number of CC-BY scientific
> > papers will likely sky-rocket in the next years, would not it be
> > relevant to try to organise "CC-BY scientific papers" driven edit-a-thons
>
> Importing text and images from freely licensed papers to Wikimedia wikis
> is a common practice. Several initiatives exist to further spread it.
> Wikimedia entities have stressed the importance of "libre open access"
> (free licenses) for over a decade now.
>
> When we rewrote the terms of use in 2009, we made sure to make such
> imports easy:
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use#7c>
>
> Many local explanations and tools also exist, like:
> <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copying_text_from_other_sources#Can_I_copy_from_open_license_or_public_domain_sources
> ?>
>
> The biggest import happened on Wikimedia Commons:
> <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Open_Access_Media_Importer_Bot>
>
> Larger imports of text have been discussed several times, mostly for
> Wikisource:
> <
> https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:WikiProject_Open_Access/Programmatic_import_from_PubMed_Central/Draft_RfC
> >
>
> Federico
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>


-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [wikicite-discuss] Leaving the Wikimedia Foundation, staying on the wikis

[Samuel Klein]

Dario -- what news!  And how close that seems to your recent pushing of us
all.
How lucky the projects have been to have you building a research
constellation, for these many years.

Leila, congrats + warm wishes in your new role.

With wikilove and taxonometrics,
SJ

On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 4:56 PM Dario Taraborelli <
dtarabore...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> I've got some personal news to share.
>
> After 8 years with Wikimedia, I have decided to leave the Foundation to
> take up a new role focused on open science. This has been a difficult
> decision but an opportunity arose and I am excited to be moving on to an
> area that’s been so close to my heart for years.
>
> Serving the movement as part of the Research team at WMF has been, and
> will definitely be, the most important gig in my life. I leave a team of
> ridiculously talented and fun people that I can’t possibly imagine not
> spending all of my days with, as well many collaborators and friends in the
> community who have I worked alongside. I am proud and thankful to have been
> part of this journey with you all. With my departure, Leila Zia is taking
> the lead of Research at WMF, and you all couldn't be in better hands.
>
> In March, I’ll be joining CZI Science—a philanthropy based in the Bay
> Area—to help build their portfolio of open science programs and technology.
> I'll continue to be an ally on the same fights in my new role.
>
> Other than that, I look forward to returning to full volunteer mode. I
> started editing English Wikipedia in 2004, working on bloody chapters in
> the history of London <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smithfield,_London>; 
> hypothetical
> astronomy <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_Nine>; unsung heroes
> among women in science <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Potter>; and
> of course natural
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_South_Napa_earthquake>, technical
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2016_Dyn_cyberattack> and political
> disasters
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections>.
> I’ve also developed an embarrassing addiction to Wikidata, and you’ll
> continue seeing me around hacking those instances of Q16521
> <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q16521> for a little while.
>
> I hope our paths cross once again in the future.
>
> Best,
>
> Dario
>
>
> --
>
> *Dario Taraborelli  *Director, Head of Research, Wikimedia Foundation
> research.wikimedia.org • nitens.org • @readermeter
> <http://twitter.com/readermeter>
>
> --
> Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiCite
> Twitter: https://twitter.com/wikicite
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "wikicite-discuss" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to wikicite-discuss+unsubscr...@wikimedia.org.
>


-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] New viz.: Wikipedias, participation per language

[Samuel Klein]

How wonderful.   Thank you !  Maybe some of this could show up in a tiny
sidebar on hatnote, too.

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 4:04 PM Erik Zachte  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I just published a new visualization: Wikipedias, compared by participation
> per language (= active editors per million speakers)
>
> There are several pages,
>
> one for a global overview
>
> https://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/participation/d3_participation_global.html
>
> one with breakdown by continent
>
> https://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/participation/d3_participation_continent.html
>
> You can also zoom in on one continent, by clicking on it
>
> Any feedback is welcome.
>
> Erik Zachte
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>


-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Reader use of Wikipedia and Commons categories

[Samuel Klein]

User of Interlang links and categories varies strongly with placement on
the page. we used to be able to see this now clearly with the multiple
popular skins. today we can perhaps see this best with the multiple apps
and viewers. on wp mobile, surprisingly, readers don't use categories at
all!

More seriously: this is a tremendously useful and underutilized slice of
wiki knowledge, like the quality and completeness categories, which deserve
to be made more visible.

@kerry I expect it isn't for edit count, it is for fixing a fast of
knowledge that those editors find critically important (as I do!). yes we
need something like petscan and intersection to be a standard aspect of on
wiki search: this is precisely the sorry of use that good clean
categorisation is good for!

categorically yours,
sj


On Thu 24 May, 2018, 6:38 PM Kerry Raymond,  wrote:

> I do outreach including training. From that, I am inclined to agree that
> readers don’t use categories. People who come to edit training are
> (unsurprisingly) generally already keen readers of Wikipedia, but
> categories seem to be something they first learn about in edit training.
> Indeed, one of my outreach offerings is just a talk about Wikipedia, which
> includes tips for getting more out of the reader experience, like
> categories, What Links Here, and lots of thing that are in plain view on
> the standard desktop interface but people aren't looking there.
>
> Also many categories exist in parallel with List-of articles and navboxes,
> which do more-or-less-but-not-exactly the same thing. It may be that
> readers are more likely to stumble on the lists or see the navbox entries
> (particularly if the navbox renders open). But all in all, I still think
> most readers enter Wikipedia via search engines and then progress further
> through Wikipedia by link clicking and using the Wikipedia search box as
> their principal navigation tools.
>
> Editors use categories principally to increase their edit count (cynical
> but it's hard to think otherwise given what I see on my watchlist); there's
> an awful lot of messing about with categories for what seems to be very
> little benefit to the reader (especially as readers don't seem to use
> them). And with a lack of obvious ways to intersect categories (petscan is
> wonderful but neither readers nor most editor know about it) an leads to
> the never-ending creation of cross-categorisation like
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:19th-century_Australian_women_writers
>
> which is pretty clearly the intersection of 4 category trees that probably
> should be independent: nationality, sex, occupation, time frame. Sooner or
> later it will inevitably be further subcategorised into
>
> 1870s British-born-Australian cis-women poets
>
> First-Monday-in-the-month Indian-born Far-North-Queensland
> cis-women-with-male-pseudonym romantic-sonnet-poets :-)
>
> Obviously categories do have some uses to editors. If you have a source
> that provides you with some information about some aspect of a group of
> topics, it can be useful to work your way through each of the entries in
> the category updating it accordingly.
>
> Machines. Yes, absolutely. I use AWB and doing things across a category
> (and the recursive closure of a category) is my primary use-case for AWB.
> My second use-case for AWB I use a template-use (template/infobox use is a
> de-facto category and indeed is a third thing that often parallels a
> category but unlike lists and navboxes, this form is invisible to the
> reader).
>
> With Commons, again, I don't think readers go there, most haven't even
> heard of it. It's mainly editors at work there and I think they do use
> categories. The category structure seems to grow there more organically.
> There is not the constant "let's rename this category worldwide" or the
> same level of cross-categorisation on Commons that I see on en.Wikipedia.
>
> I note that while we cannot know who is using categories, we can still get
> page count stats for the category itself. These tend to be close to
> 0-per-day for a lot of categories (e.g. Town halls in Queensland). Even a
> category that one might think has much greater interest get relatively low
> numbers, e.g. "Presidents of the United States" gets 26-per-day views on
> average. This compares with 37K daily average for the Donald Trump article,
> 19K for Barack Obama, and 16K for George Washington. So this definitely
> suggests that the readers who presumably make up the bulk of the views  on
> the presidential articles  are not looking at the obvious category for such
> folk (although they might be moving between presidential articles using by
> navboxes, succession boxes, lists or other links). Having said that, the
> Donald Trump article has *53* categories of which Presidents of the United
> States is number 39 (they appear to be alphabetically ordered), so it is
> possible that the reader never found the presidential category 

Re: [Wiki-research-l] A new landing page for the Wikimedia Research team

[Samuel Klein]

Seconded - and it looks simply gorgeous.

On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 10:04 PM, Heather Ford <hfor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> This is great. So much easier to find things and understand what the team
> is doing :) Nice work!
>
> Dr Heather Ford
> Senior Lecturer, School of Arts & Media <https://sam.arts.unsw.edu.au/>,
> University of New South Wales
> w: hblog.org / EthnographyMatters.net <http://ethnographymatters.net/> /
> t:
> @hfordsa <http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa>
>
>
> On 7 February 2018 at 05:44, Dario Taraborelli <dtarabore...@wikimedia.org
> >
> wrote:
>
> > *Hey all,We’re thrilled to announce the Wikimedia Research team now has a
> > simple, navigable, and accessible landing page, making our output,
> > projects, and resources easy to discover and learn about:
> > https://research.wikimedia.org <https://research.wikimedia.org/> The
> > Research team decided to create a single go-to page (T107389
> > <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T107389>) to provide an additional
> way
> > to discover information we have on wiki, for the many audiences we would
> > like to engage with – particularly those who are not already familiar
> with
> > how to navigate our projects. On this page, potential academic
> > collaborators, journalists, funding organizations, and others will find
> > links to relevant resources, contact information, collaboration and
> > partnership opportunities, and ways to follow the team's work.There are
> > many more research resources produced by different teams and departments
> at
> > WMF – from Analytics, to Audiences, to Grantmaking, and Programs. If you
> > see anything that’s missing within the scope of the Research team, please
> > let us know <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T107389>!Dario*
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > *Dario Taraborelli  *Director, Head of Research, Wikimedia Foundation
> > wikimediafoundation.org • nitens.org • @readermeter
> > <http://twitter.com/readermeter>
> > ___
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>



-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Research into Requests for Comments and the closing process

[Samuel Klein]

Also RfC practice has varied dramatically over the years; and across wiki
communities of different sizes; and varies strongly with the quality of the
summary being commented on.   In many contexts & scales it is ineffective;
in others it can work well.

A good RfC leads to useful improvement almost all of the time, regardless
of outcome.  A bad one has the outcome "do nothing unless a supermajority
of people agree with the proposal as initially written".

You might also want to reach out to other collaborative communities --
other wikis, Loomio? IETF? -- for compraison of what they like and would
change about their variations :)

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 10:15 PM, Jonathan Cardy <
werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Amy,
>
> That's an interesting topic, for your database you might want to just
> filter your dataset for some outliers that start and close on the first of
> April broadly construed (it is more than forty hours from when April Fools
> day starts in New Zealand to when it ends in California).
>
> Regards
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> > On 31 May 2017, at 20:40, Amy Zhang <a...@mit.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > We are preparing to conduct some research into the process of how
> Requests
> > for Comments (RfCs) get discussed and closed. This work is further
> > described in the following Wikimedia page: https://meta.wikimedia.o
> > rg/wiki/Research:Discussion_summarization_and_decision_
> support_with_Wikum
> >
> > To begin, we are planning to do a round of interviews with people who
> > participate in RfCs in English Wikipedia, including frequent closers,
> > infrequent closers, and people who participate in but don't close RfCs.
> We
> > will be asking them about how they go about closing RfCs and their
> opinions
> > on how the overall process could be improved. We are also creating a
> > database of all the RfCs on English Wikipedia that have gone through a
> > formal closure process and parsing their conversations.
> >
> > While planning the interviews, we thought that the information that we
> > gather could be of interest to the Wikimedia community, so we wanted to
> > open it up and ask if there was anything you would be interested in
> > learning about RfCs or RfC closure from people who participate in them.
> > Also, if you know of existing work in this area, please let us know.
> >
> > Thank you!
> >
> > Amy
> >
> >
> > --
> > Amy X. Zhang | Ph.D. student at MIT CSAIL | http://people.csail.mit.edu/
> axz
> > | @amyxzh
> > ___
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>



-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Research on automatically created articles

[Samuel Klein]

Thanks Sidd for responding actively in this thread.

The biggest problem here: the algorithm used in this research were bad.
They produced nonsense that wasn't remotely grammatical.  You should have
caught most of these problems.  (The early version of the bot (for just
plays) had a poor success rate as well, but it seemed plausible that a
template for tiny play articles could be effectively filled out with
automation.)

Two interesting results IMO:
 + A nonsensical article with a decent first sentence & sections, and refs
(however random), can serve as encouragement to write a real article.
Possibly more of an encouragement than just the first sentence alone.  I
believe there's some related research into how people respond to cold
emails that include mistakes & nonsense.  (Surely there's a more effective
\ non-offensive way to produce similar results)
 + We could use even a naive measure of the coverage & consistency of new
article review.  (If it drops below a certain threshhold, we could do
something like change the background color & search-engine metadata for
pages that haven't been properly reviewed yet)

For future researchers:
If we encourage people to spend more time making tools work – rather than
doing something simple (even counterproductive) and writing a paper about
it – everyone will benefit.  The main namespace is full of bots, both fully
automatic and requiring a human to run them. Anyone considering or
implementing wiki automation should look at them and talk to the community
of bot maintainers.

Sam

On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 1:28 PM, siddhartha banerjee <sidd2...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Ziko,
>
> Thanks for your detailed email. Agree on all the comments.
>
> Some earlier comments might have been harsh, but I understand that there
> is a valid reason behind it and also the dedication of so many people
> involved to help reach Wikipedia where it is today.
>
> We should have been more diligent in finding out policies and rules
> (including IRB) before entering content on Wikipedia. We promise not to
> repeat anything of this sort in the future and also I am trying to
> summarize all that has been discussed here to prevent such unpleasant
> experiences from other researchers in this area.
>
> -- Sidd
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>


-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Gender bias in GitHub (but not entirely what you expect)

[Samuel Klein]

The full paper is very much worth reading.

Peter writes:
> One theory may be that outsiders contribute trivial fixes, which are
> virtually assured to have a 100% acceptance rate by communities that
> wish to expand.

Did you read the paper?
"the changes proposed by women typically included more lines of code than
men's, so they weren't just submitting smaller contributions either."

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 6:42 AM, Flöck, Fabian 
wrote:

> There are several issues with this study, some of which are pointed out
> here in a useful summary:
> http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/02/12/before-you-get-too-excited-about-that-github-study/
>  .
>
>

Fabian, slatestarcodex is a perennially unreliable source on discussions of
gender issues. You cannot take his analysis at face value and have to
actually read the paper.


> Especially making the gender responsible for the difference in contrast to
> other attributes of the users that might be just linked to the gender
> (maybe the women that join GitHub are just the very
> best/professional women, contribute only to specific types of code, etc.,
> etc.)
>

The authors discuss this at length.  The result observed held true across
all languages and many types of code.  And their conclusions are indeed
guesses about what shared attributes might lead to the strong statistical
observation.
"Given that there is no "computer science gene" that occurs more often in
women than in men, there has to be a social bias at work."
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Community health statistics of Wikiprojects

[Samuel Klein]

That's fair, Kerry.  The structure of a wikiProject as often conceived is
so high-maintenance that it just barely worked when there was 2x-10x more
wiki activity in focused areas.  At present, they're no longer really
viable; and our historical memory of what wikiProjects can be or do isn't
that relevant today.

There has always been lighter-weight coordination through scripts (and
those who use them) and talk pages.  Thoughtful tracking of coordination
would look across all of those types of efforts; find the very active
people reaching out to others and let them template & script their work;
and perhaps help create wikiProject-like dashboards for every such group.

That said, the largest initiatives - from typo-fixing to quality-tagging to
tree of life - did have wikiProjects associated with them.  Whether those
came first, or second, after there was a group actively doing the work, is
a different question.

SJ

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Kerry Raymond <kerry.raym...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I would say that projects have a number of levels of activity:
>
> 1. dead
> 2. someone is running around tagging articles with the Project banner
> 3. there is genuine conversation (not just spam) on their Project talk
> 4. there is some kind of  To-Do list that gets added to
> 5. items actually come off the To-Do list because they've been done
>
> In my own editing,  I've never seen level 5. I know of a few at levels 3
> and 4. There's a lot of level 2 and many are dead. I think you'd need a
> project at least at level 3 to make it worthwhile to point a newbie at it,
> but that's no guarantee that the conversation taking place will be
> encouraging or welcoming.
>
> While I say I have never seen level 5, I am nonetheless aware of very
> small groups of editors  that act like they have a mission but seem to
> coordinate via User Talk than a project page. I must say I tend to operate
> in that mode because I find the formalised projects attract too many people
> who want to "lay down the rules to everyone else" rather than get on and do
> the job.
>
> Kerry
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wiki-research-l [mailto:wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org]
> On Behalf Of Yaroslav M. Blanter
> Sent: Saturday, 9 January 2016 2:34 AM
> To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities <
> wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Community health statistics of Wikiprojects
>
> On 2016-01-08 07:27, Samuel Klein wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:45 AM, Jonathan Cardy
> > <werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> More broadly it would be good to know if wikiprojects are good for
> >> editor recruitment and retention. My hypothesis is that if someone if
> >> someone tries out editing Wikipedia and is steered to an active and
> >> relevant wikiproject then they will be more likely to continue after
> >> that first trial edit. I simply don't know whether introducing people
> >> to inactive wikiprojects is worthwhile or what the cutoff is on
> >> activity.
> >
> > That's probably right.  I think a nice cutoff on activity would be:
> > ask all wikiprojects to come up with a banner to show to a subset of
> > newbies, to indicate how many newbies or impressions they want (what
> > they think they can handle), and to create a page/section with an
> > intro and projects for newbies, if they don't already have one.   Any
> > project that can manage this is welcome to get a few newbies to work
> > with if they want, in my book.
> >
>
> Actually, already knowing how many WikiProjects are alive (for example, I
> watch several, and most of them are dead) would be already valuable.
> May be even posting a question at the talk page of every WikiProject
> whether the project is alive and able to set up smth would give the answer.
> (Number of watchers certainly does not - many projects are watched by a lot
> of inactive users).
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>



-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Community health statistics of Wikiprojects

[Samuel Klein]

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:45 AM, Jonathan Cardy  wrote:
>
>
> More broadly it would be good to know if wikiprojects are good for editor
> recruitment and retention. My hypothesis is that if someone if someone
> tries out editing Wikipedia and is steered to an active and relevant
> wikiproject then they will be more likely to continue after that first
> trial edit. I simply don't know whether introducing people to inactive
> wikiprojects is worthwhile or what the cutoff is on activity.
>

That's probably right.  I think a nice cutoff on activity would be: ask all
wikiprojects to come up with a banner to show to a subset of newbies, to
indicate how many newbies or impressions they want (what they think they
can handle), and to create a page/section with an intro and projects for
newbies, if they don't already have one.   Any project that can manage this
is welcome to get a few newbies to work with if they want, in my book.


> we could have a phenomenon here that will over time exacerbate wikipedia's
> problem of patchy coverage with the better covered topics improving faster
> than the gaps. Conversely if each topic has a founder effect then over time
> Wikipedia will become less uneven as more and more topics go through the
> phase of having an active editor or editors making their mark on the topic
> by radically improving articles.
>

Isn't that how the projects have worked so far?  the above happens, but
also when a topic is fully covered it becomes boring to all but the
completionists, so they look for other things to do.  So patchwork
hyperfocus flutters across fields and topics and ends up covering quite a
lot.  That type of individual focus is probably less biased towards 'the
popular stuff' than the diffuse tidbit updates that add recent links and
current events: the unevenness of the latter is more noticeable, since it
is steady over time.

Cheers, Sam
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Citoid (automatically formatted citations) now available on Meta-Wiki

[Samuel Klein]

Wonderful, thanks Guillaume.
On Oct 20, 2015 3:35 PM, "Guillaume Paumier"  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> If you sometimes edit citation-heavy pages on Meta-Wiki (for example when
> you
> document your projects in the Research: namespace), you might be
> interested in
> knowing that you can now automatically format your citations with Citoid.
>
> Citoid is a tool based on Zotero and integrated with the visual editor on
> Wikimedia wikis. It allows you to automatically retrieve metadata about a
> citation using its DOI or URI, and automatically format and insert that
> information using the standard citation templates from Wikipedia.
>
> Citoid has been in use on several Wikipedia wikis for a while, but it
> wasn't
> set up to work on Meta. Given that Meta hosts a lot of research
> documentation,
> I decided to configure it as well (mostly for my own convenience, but it
> benefits everyone :)
>
> You can refer to Wikipedia's user guide to see screenshots of Citoid:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VisualEditor/User_guide#Using_Citoid
>
> (To learn more about Citoid itself and how it works behind the scenes, see
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Citoid )
>
> Citoid works with the visual editor, which you can enable in your user
> preferences if you haven't already. In your beta options:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures
> click on "Visual editing" and then save your preferences.
>
> If you have an account on Meta and have enabled visual editing, you can
> test
> Citoid in your personal sandbox:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyPage/sandbox
>
> In the visual editor, click the "Cite" button in the toolbar. Try to add,
> for
> example:
> * http://abs.sagepub.com/content/57/5/664
> * 10.2139/ssrn.2021326
> * http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0262016575
> and watch as they become complete citations, fully formatted with the
> appropriate templates.
>
> I have also taken this opportunity to update the main citation templates on
> Meta (cite journal, cite book, etc.) with their most recent version from
> the
> English Wikipedia, using the latest Lua modules. I haven't imported all of
> Wikipedia's citation templates, only the most common. Feel free to reach
> out
> to me off-list and/or on-wiki if you want me to import another one.
>
> As always, feel free to drop by in the #wikimedia-research channel on
> Freenode
> IRC if you notice a problem. (And you're welcome to stay once you get
> there!
> We're a welcoming bunch.)
>
> (As a side note, if there is someone familiar with Semantic MediaWiki
> around,
> I'd love to see if we can couple it with Citoid, in order to match their
> fields. This would make it much easier to add new entries to WikiPapers,
> simply
> by entering their DOI/URI.)
>
> --
> Guillaume Paumier
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Aidez à améliorer l'exhaustivité de Wikipédia en français

[Samuel Klein]

Interesting, I figured I received the mail because of joining translation
projects.   It seems that it's enough to have made a single edit in both
language wikipedias in the last year.

I hope you will do this in both directions for each language pair (both
suggestions from FR -- EN and from EN -- FR.)

On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 12:29 AM, Emmanuel Engelhart kel...@kiwix.org
wrote:

 FYI, the Wikipedia in French has an article evaluation program (like on
 Wikipedia in English) based on wikiprojects, so honestly I think they
 already know pretty well where are the weakness without the help of a
 robot: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projet:%C3%89valuation/Index


The article eval programs like this one are really good. I agree that's a
good source of prioritization of topics  (whether or not a bot is involved;
bots are people too).  But this system isn't so good at identifying topics
that haven't yet been written.

S
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Aidez à améliorer l'exhaustivité de Wikipédia en français

[Samuel Klein]

Leila - great responses, thank you.

On Jun 26, 2015 1:28 PM, Juergen Fenn jf...@gmx.net wrote:

 you certainly leave it to the editor whether or not to take action and
actually translate an article you have suggested.

 However, I think a threshold is crossed here with the Wikimedia
Foundation interfering into the editors' business. It has generally been
accepted that the Foundation will not care about content creation, except
for handling DMCA takedown requests as office actions.

The WMF has cared openly about content creation since at least 2009 when
quality and content metrics, and the breadth and diversity of contributors
(because of its impact on content) were made core strategic goals.

But I think this is a more interesting question here: not 'can (one actor)
solicit creation', but 'how can one part of the community solicit creation
at large scale'.

Yes, the WMF is involved with this effort
So is Stanford. But it seems this is closer to people testing the first
bots: it is about building a code and social framework in which anyone
could run an outreach campaign by finding other contributors according to
some metric, and asking them to do tasks according to some other metric.

That is what's primarily at stake here: whether this makes sense and how to
do it well. Then secondarily, who should do it, how often, with what level
of explicit buy-in.

Regards,
Sam
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Aidez à améliorer l'exhaustivité de Wikipédia en français

[Samuel Klein]

This is such a delightful experience.  Whoever is working on translation
interfaces and translation research this way: very nicely done indeed.

Sadly, automatic translation hinting doesn't seem to be available yet.  Or
at least it's
Non disponible pour français

SJ


2015-06-25 15:59 GMT-07:00 Wikimedia Research 
recommender-feedb...@wikimedia.org:

 Bonjour, L’équipe Recherche de la Fondation Wikimédia (Wikimedia
 Research) travaille actuellement sur l’identification d’articles populaires
 et importants1 #14e2cf2eca33408f_fn1 dans certaines langues du projet
 Wikipédia qui n’existent pas encore sur le Wikipédia francophone. Les cinq
 articles suivants existent dans la version anglophone de Wikipédia et sont
 considérés comme étant importants pour les autres langues du projet. Au vu
 de votre historique de contribution à Wikipédia, nous pensons que vous êtes
 un(e) excellent candidat(e) pour contribuer à ces articles. Démarrer la
 création de l'un de ces articles serait un premier pas considérable en vue
 d'élargir les connaissances disponibles en français.2
 #14e2cf2eca33408f_fn2

 Dollfus' stargazer
 https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ContentTranslation?campaign=frwiki-recommenderto=frfrom=enpage=Dollfus'_stargazer

 Request Tracker
 https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ContentTranslation?campaign=frwiki-recommenderto=frfrom=enpage=Request_Tracker

 American Poultry Association
 https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ContentTranslation?campaign=frwiki-recommenderto=frfrom=enpage=American_Poultry_Association

 Attribute–value pair
 https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ContentTranslation?campaign=frwiki-recommenderto=frfrom=enpage=Attribute–value_pair

 Kal Aaj Aur Kal
 https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ContentTranslation?campaign=frwiki-recommenderto=frfrom=enpage=Kal_Aaj_Aur_Kal

   Nous vous remercions d'avance pour votre aide. 3 #14e2cf2eca33408f_fn3
 4 #14e2cf2eca33408f_fn4

 Equipe de Recherche
 Fondation Wikimédia
 149 New Montgomery Street, 6th Floor
 San Francisco, CA, 94105
 415.839.6885 (Office)
 --
  1. Nous identifions les articles importants et populaires grâce à un
 algorithme. Cette sélection d'articles peut être un résultat personnalisé
 ou aléatoire. Vous pouvez en apprendre davantage sur la personnalisation et
 les méthodes utilisées pour trouver les articles importants à cette
 adresse
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Increasing_article_coverage#Methodology
 .
 2. Les liens pointent vers l’outil de traduction de Wikipédia
 (ContentTranslation Tool). Cet outil est en cours de développement par
 l’équipe Language Engineering de la fondation (pour l’instant en version
 beta dans certaines langues). En savoir plus:
 https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Content_translation.
 3. Si vous désirez plus d’informations sur ce projet de recherche, vous
 pouvez lire cette page
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Increasing_article_coverage
 (en anglais), et nous en parler sur sa page de discussion
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Increasing_article_coverage
 (en anglais de préférence, même si nous trouverons certainement un
 traducteur si vous nous écrivez en français :).
 4. Votre avis est important pour nous. Faites nous part de vos impressions
 par courriel à l’adresse recommender-feedb...@wikimedia.org.


 Si vous ne souhaitez plus recevoir de courriel de Wikimedia Research,
 merci d’envoyer un courriel ayant pour sujet unsubscribe à l’adresse
 recommender-feedb...@wikimedia.org.

___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Community health (retitled thread)

[Samuel Klein]

://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 wikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe


 ___
 Wiki-research-l mailing list
 Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l



 ___
 Wiki-research-l mailing list
 Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l




-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] New dumps for 268 902 Wikia wikis: most complete ever

[Samuel Klein]

Thank you as always for this work.
It is enormously helpful, for casual analysis as well as deep research.  SJ
On Feb 6, 2015 12:37 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:

 I just published https://archive.org/details/wikia_dump_20141219 :

 

 Snapshot of all the known Wikia dumps. Where a Wikia public dump was
 missing, we produced one ourselves. 9 broken wikis, as well as lyricswikia
 and some wikis for which dumpgenerator.py failed, are still missing; some
 Wikia XML files are incorrectly terminated and probably incomplete.

 In detail, this item contains dumps for 268 902 wikis in total, of which
 21 636 full dumps produced by Wikia, 247 266 full XML dumps produced by us
 and 5610 image dumps produced by Wikia. Up to 60 752 wikis are missing.
 Nonetheless, this is the most complete Wikia dump ever produced.

 

 We appreciate help to:
 * verify the quality of the data (for Wikia dumps I only checked valid
 gzipping; for WikiTeam dumps only XML well-formedness
 https://github.com/WikiTeam/wikiteam/issues/214 );
 * figure out what's going on for those 60k missing wikis
 https://github.com/WikiTeam/wikiteam/commit/a1921f0919c7b44cfef967f5d07ea4
 953b0a736d ;
 * improve dumpgenerator.py management of huge XML files
 https://github.com/WikiTeam/wikiteam/issues/8 ;
 * fix anything else! https://github.com/WikiTeam/wikiteam/issues

 For all updates on Wikia dumps, please watchlist/subscribe to the feed of:
 http://archiveteam.org/index.php?title=Wikia (notable update: future
 Wikia dumps will be 7z).

 Nemo

 ___
 Wiki-research-l mailing list
 Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Wikimedia-l] wikipedia access traces ?

[Samuel Klein]

Both the desire for highly granular data and the concerns about
privacy seem somewhat caricatured in this conversation :)

Valerio writes:

 Access traces need to be accurate to model the workload on the servers
 that are storing the contents being served the web serves.
 A resolution bigger than 1 second would not reflect the access patterns on
 Wikipedia, or similarly versioned, web sites.

I don't understand your last sentence.  Why can't you do the analysis
you describe with hour-resolution data?  It might help this discussion
if you did a sample analysis for one page  one day, with available
data, and indicated where higher res would help.

Pine writes:

 Someone might be able to monitor the user's end of the transactions, such
 as by having university network logs that show destination domains and
 timestamps, in such a way that they could pair the university logs with
 Wikimedia access traces of one second granularity and thus defeat some
 measures of privacy for the university's Wikimedia users, correct?

en.wp gets 2000+ pageviews/s, so not much privacy is lost in that
scenario, which is already pretty narrow: if you have access to the
university logs, you might have access to the full destination url.
I'm having a hard time seeing how high-res data (full urls, no source)
would be a privacy risk – but if needed, binning could likely be done
closer to the second than to the hour.

Warmly, Sam


On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 7:56 AM, Valerio Schiavoni
valerio.schiav...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hello everyone,
 it seems the discussion is sparkling an interesting debate, thanks to
 everyone.

 To put back things in context, we use Wikipedia as one of the few websites
 where users can access different 'versions' of the same page.
 Users mostly read the most recent version of a given page, but from time to
 time, read accesses to the 'history' of a page happens.
 New versions of a page are created as well. Finally, users might potentially
 need to explore several old versions of a given web page, for example by
 accessing the details of its history[1].
 Access traces need to be accurate to model the workload on the servers that
 are storing the contents being served the web serves.
 A resolution bigger than 1 second would not reflect the access patterns on
 Wikipedia, or similarly versioned, web sites.
 We use these access patterns to test different version-aware storage
 techniques.
 For those interested, I could send the pre-print version of an article that
 I will present next month at the IEEE SRDS'14 conference.

 For what concern potential privacy concerns about disclosing such traces, I
 would like to stress that we are not looking into 'who' or from 'where' a
 given URL was requested. Those informations are completely absent from the
 Wikibench traces, and can/should remain such in new traces.

 Let's say Wikipedia somehow reveals the top-10 most-visited pages in the
 last minute: would that represent a privacy breach for some users? I hardly
 doubt so, and I invite the audience to convince me about the contrary.

 Best regards,
 Valerio

 1- For example:
 http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bushaction=history

 On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:

 Let's loop back to the request at hand. Valerio, can you describe your use
 case for access traces at intervals shorter than one hour? The very likely
 outcome of this discussion is that the access traces at shorter intervals
 will not be made available, but I'm curious about what you would do with the
 data if you had it.

 Pine

 On Sep 18, 2014 4:55 PM, Richard Jensen rjen...@uic.edu wrote:

 the basic issue in sampling is to decide what the target population T
 actually is. Then you weight the sample so that each person in the target
 population has an equal chance w  and people not in it have weight zero.

 So what is the target population we want to study?
 --the world's population?
 --the world's educated population?
 --everyone with internet access
 --everyone who ever uses Wikipedia
 --everyone who use it a lot
 --everyone  who has knowledge to contribute in positive fashion?
 --everyone  who has the internet, skills and potential to contribute?
 --everyone  who has the potential to contribute but does not do so?

 Richard Jensen
 rjen...@uic.edu


 ___
 Wiki-research-l mailing list
 Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l


 ___
 Wiki-research-l mailing list
 Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l



 ___
 Wiki-research-l mailing list
 Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l




-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wikimedia monthly research showcase: Feb 26, 11.30 PT

[Samuel Klein]

On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 6:43 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:

 Is there a catalog of all data that could possibly be available (for
 instance, the mw.session cookie), along with where it is logged, for
 how long, and where in various toolchains it gets stripped out?

Another example someone pointed out today: our search logs.
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/09/19/what-are-readers-looking-for-wikipedia-search-data-now-available/

Is there a sense of how many groups wanted this data?
Was it possible to publish those logs without field #4, or was that
simply not interesting?  c.

Extra thanks for having the showcases permanently up online!

SJ

___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wikimedia monthly research showcase: Feb 26, 11.30 PT

[Samuel Klein]

Thank you for these showcases, they are great.  I'm a fan of using
session data as a baseline metric; kudos to Oliver for this work.

Is there a catalog of all data that could possibly be available (for
instance, the mw.session cookie), along with where it is logged, for
how long, and where in various toolchains it gets stripped out?

Related lists could be useful for planning:
* Limitations our privacy policies place on data gathering (handy when
reviewing those policies)
* Studies that are easy and hard given the types of data we gather
* Wishlists (from external researchers, and from internal staff) of
data-sets that would be useful but aren't currently available.  Along
with a sense of priority, complexity, cost.



On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Dario Taraborelli
dtarabore...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Starting tomorrow (February 26), we will be broadcasting the monthly
 showcase of the Wikimedia Research and Data team.

 The showcase is an opportunity to present and discuss recent work
 researchers at the Foundation have been conducting. The showcase will start
 at 11.30 Pacific Time and we will post a link to the stream a few minutes
 before it starts. You can also join the conversation on the
 #wikimedia-office IRC channel on freenode (we'll be sticking around after
 the end of the showcase to answer any question).

 This month, we'll be talking about Wikipedia mobile readers and article
 creation trends:

 Oliver Keyes
 Mobile session times
 A prerequisite to many pieces of interesting reader research is being able
 to accurately identify the length of users' 'sessions'. I will explain one
 potential way of doing it, how I've applied it to mobile readers, and what
 research this opens up. (20 mins)
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Mobile_sessions

 Aaron Halfaker
 Wikipedia article creation research
 I'll present research examining trends in newcomer article creation across
 10 languages with a focus on English and German Wikipedias.   I'll show
 that, in wikis where anonymous users can create articles, their articles are
 less likely to be deleted than articles created by newly registered editors.
 I'll also show the results of an in-depth analysis of Articles for Creation
 (AfC) which suggest that while AfC's process seems to result in the
 publication of high quality articles, it also dramatically reduces the rate
 at which good new articles are published. (30 mins)
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_article_creation

 Looking forward to seeing you all tomorrow!

 Dario

 ___
 Wiki-research-l mailing list
 Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l




-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266

___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

[Wiki-research-l] General user survey: future plans?

[Samuel Klein]

There has been a healthy amount of discussion recently about
project-level surveys.

Is anyone working on a general user survey?  An annual version of this
would be valuable:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/General_User_Survey

Likewise, an annual report on opt-in data from user preferences.

SJ

___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [CODE4LIB] Job: Wikipedia Affiliate at George Mason University

[Samuel Klein]

 fifty scholars, technologists, and
 researchers
 work together to advance the state of the art.


 RRCHNM uses digital media and technology to preserve and present history
 online, transform scholarship across the humanities, and advance historical
 education and understanding. Each year RRCHNM's many project websites
 receive
 over 20 million visitors, and over a million people rely on its digital
 tools
 to teach, learn, and conduct research.


 George Mason University is a public research university located
 approximately
 14 miles from Washington, D.C., with over 30,000 students. Global education
 and research are a fundamental part of the university's mission to serve
 its
 diverse and international student body. RRCHNM is part of the Department of
 History and Art History.


 About The Wikipedia Library

 The Wikipedia Library connects Wikipedia editors with libraries, open
 access
 resources, paywalled databases, and research experts. We are working
 together
 towards 5 big goals that create an open hub for conducting research:


 Connect editors with their local library and freely accessible resources

 Partner to provide free access to paywalled publications, databases,
 universities, and libraries

 Build relationships among our community of editors, libraries, and
 librarians

 Facilitate research for Wikipedians, helping editors to find and use
 sources

 Promote broader open access in publishing and research

 The Wikipedia Affiliate to RRCHNM position is based on the Wikipedia
 Visiting
 Scholar idea suggested by Peter Suber at the Harvard Open Access Project.



 Brought to you by code4lib jobs: http://jobs.code4lib.org/job/11416/


 ___
 Wiki-research-l mailing list
 Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l




-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wikipedia users session duration?

[Samuel Klein]

I was wondering this also. Are there any good measures of session duration
or dwell time on a single page?

Sam
On Aug 22, 2013 1:45 PM, Stella Yu stell...@gmail.com wrote:

 We are aware that Wikipedia does not track user sessions. There may be
 survey/poll companies that have surveyed people about their usage and their
 time spent on Wikipedia.

 Curious, where are there reports that can shed some light on this?

 Thank you!


 All the best,

 Stella
 --


 ___
 Wiki-research-l mailing list
 Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l


___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wikipedia users session duration?

[Samuel Klein]

Wonderful.  Is there anything similar for reader sessions?

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Aaron Halfaker
aaron.halfa...@gmail.com wrote:
 It turns out that I have docs, code and research for you.

 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Metrics/edit_sessions

 Using Edit Session to Measure Participation in Wikipedia
 R. Stuart Geiger  Aaron Halfaker. (2013). CSCW (pp. 861-870)
 DOI:10.1145/2441776.2441873.

 http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/Using_Edit_Sessions_to_Measure_Participation_in_Wikipedia/geiger13using-preprint.pdf

 On Aug 22, 2013 12:55 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:

 I was wondering this also. Are there any good measures of session duration
 or dwell time on a single page?

 Sam

 On Aug 22, 2013 1:45 PM, Stella Yu stell...@gmail.com wrote:

 We are aware that Wikipedia does not track user sessions. There may be
 survey/poll companies that have surveyed people about their usage and their
 time spent on Wikipedia.

 Curious, where are there reports that can shed some light on this?

 Thank you!


 All the best,

 Stella
 --


 ___
 Wiki-research-l mailing list
 Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l


 ___
 Wiki-research-l mailing list
 Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l


 ___
 Wiki-research-l mailing list
 Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l




-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266

___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] A wiki search engine

[Samuel Klein]

Hi, awesome to see thid move forward.  This is solving a major namespace
style problem (for the namespace of queries) and I fully support it.  Good
luck with the work and I would love to help test the beta.

Sam.
On Aug 4, 2013 12:24 AM, Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada emi...@gmail.com
wrote:

 Hi all again;

 After some months, we have the domain for LibreFind[1] and some usable
 results[2][3] (the bot is running). Also, there is a mailing list[4] and a
 Google Code project[5].

 I would like you can join the brainstorm. We need to establish some
 policies about how to sort results, bots to check dead links, crawlers to
 improve the results, and many more. You can request an account for the
 closed beta.

 Thanks for your time,
 emijrp

 [1] http://www.librefind.org
 [2] http://www.librefind.org/wiki/Spain
 [3] http://www.librefind.org/wiki/Edgar_Allan_Poe
 [4] http://groups.google.com/group/librefind
 [5] https://code.google.com/p/librefind/

 2012/10/27 emijrp emi...@gmail.com

 After some tests and usability improvements, I'm going to launch an
 English alpha version.

 I still need a cool name for the project, any idea?

 Stay tunned.


 2012/10/23 emijrp emi...@gmail.com

 Yes, there are some options: (semi)protections, blocks, spam black
 lists, flaggedrevs, abuse filter and some more. All them are well known
 MediaWiki features and extensions.

 Thanks for your interest.


 2012/10/23 ENWP Pine deyntest...@hotmail.com


 I agree that this sounds like an interesting experiment. I hope that
 you get good faith editors. I worry that you’ll get COI editors playing
 with the search rankings. Do you have a way in mind to deal with that 
 issue?

 Pine

  *From:* emijrp emi...@gmail.com
 *Sent:* Monday, 22 October, 2012 08:29
 *To:* Research into Wikimedia content and 
 communitieswiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 *Subject:* [Wiki-research-l] A wiki search engine

 Hi all;

 I'm starting a new project, a wiki search engine. It uses MediaWiki,
 Semantic MediaWiki and other minor extensions, and some tricky templates
 and bots.

 I remember Wikia Search and how it failed. It had the mini-article
 thingy for the introduction, and then a lot of links compiled by a crawler.
 Also something similar to a social network.

 My project idea (which still needs a cool name) is different. Althought
 it uses an introduction and images copied from Wikipedia, and some links
 from the External links sections, it is only a start. The purpose is that
 community adds, removes and orders the results for each term, and creates
 redirects for similar terms to avoid duplicates.

 Why this? I think that Google PageRank isn't enough. It is frequently
 abused by farmlinks, SEOs and other people trying to put their websites
 above.

 Search Shakira in Google for example. You see 1) Official site, 2)
 Wikipedia 3) Twitter 4) Facebook, then some videos, some news, some images,
 Myspace. It wastes 3 or more results in obvious nice sites (WP, TW, FB).
 The wiki search engine puts these sites in the top, and an introduction and
 related terms, leaving all the space below to not so obvious but
 interesting websites. Also, if you search for semantic queries like
 right-wing newspapers in Google, you won't find real newspapers but
 people and sites discussing about ring-wing newspapers. Or latex and
 LaTeX being shown in the same results pages. These issues can be resolved
 with disambiguation result pages.

 How we choose which results are above or below? The rules are not fully
 designed yet, but we can put official sites in the first place, then .gov
 or .edu domains which are important ones, and later unofficial websites,
 blogs, giving priority to local language, etc. And reaching consensus.

 We can control aggresive spam with spam blacklists, semi-protect or
 protect highly visible pages, and use bots or tools to check changes.

 It obviously has a CC BY-SA license and results can be exported. I
 think that this approach is the opposite to Google today.

 For weird queries like Albert Einstein birthplace we can redirect to
 the most obvious results page (in this case Albert Einstein) using a
 hand-made redirect or by software (some little change in MediaWiki).

 You can check a pretty alpha version here http://www.todogratix.es(only 
 Spanish by now sorry) which I'm feeding with some bots.

 I think that it is an interesting experiment. I'm open to your
 questions and feedback.

 Regards,
 emijrp

 --
 Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada. E-mail: emijrp AT gmail DOT com
 Pre-doctoral student at the University of Cádiz (Spain)
 Projects: AVBOT http://code.google.com/p/avbot/ | 
 StatMediaWikihttp://statmediawiki.forja.rediris.es
 | WikiEvidens http://code.google.com/p/wikievidens/ | 
 WikiPapershttp://wikipapers.referata.com
 | WikiTeam http://code.google.com/p/wikiteam/
 Personal website: https://sites.google.com/site/emijrp/

  --
 ___
 Wiki-research-l mailing list
 

Re: [Wiki-research-l] WikiSym proceedings available

[Samuel Klein]

How great. Thanks for the link, and much love for your citations
analysis.  (please, please follow up with a comparison across
languages other than English!)

SJ
Just arrived in HKG

On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 9:33 PM, Heather Ford hfor...@gmail.com wrote:
 WikiSym/OpenSym just began in Hong Kong
 http://opensym.org/wsos2013/program/day1

 Proceedings at http://opensym.org/wsos2013/program/proceedings. Follow on
 Twitter #wikisym #opensym

 Thanks, Dirk!







 Heather Ford
 Oxford Internet Institute Doctoral Programme
 www.ethnographymatters.net
 @hfordsa on Twitter
 http://hblog.org


 ___
 Wiki-research-l mailing list
 Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l




-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266

___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Wikimedia Award] vote to award 2500€ !

[Samuel Klein]

This is a great initiative!  Thanks for sharing.

On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Rémi Bachelet remi.bache...@ec-lille.fr wrote:
 Dear all,

 Wikimédia France, a non-profit organization supporting Wikimedia projects in
 France, is launching an international research prize of 2500€ to reward the
 most influential research work on Wikimedia projects.

 We are now in the final voting phase of the Award, so please vote and
 forward this mail !

 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_France_Research_Award/nominated_papers

 best

 2012/7/25 Rémi Bachelet remi.bache...@ec-lille.fr

 Hi all,


 Wikimédia France, a non-profit organization supporting Wikimedia projects
 in France, is launching an international research prize to reward the most
 influential research work on Wikimedia projects and free knowledge projects
 in general.

 What is quite new about this award is that everyone can participate:

 by ranking nominated papers to elect the winner (ranking is shared with
 the award jury).
 by submitting important articles in this field of research for the Award.

 Regarding the latter, we are now in the process of proposing papers and
 we'd appreciate if some of you can lend a hand. If you consider a paper has
 been particularly important in the field of free knowledge/Wikipedia studies
 and must be taken into account, do not hesitate to submit it now!

 Please use this
 form:http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_France_Research_Award/papers_submission.
 Deadline for paper suggestion is August 1st.


 After that, the next phase is shortlisting nominated papers. The Wikimedia
 Award Jury will study all proposed papers to submit 5 papers to the final
 vote in September. The announcement of the winner is planned in November.

 Please find all details here:
 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_France_Research_Award


 If you have any questions, please use the project talk page:
 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Wikimedia_France_Research_Award

 Thanks!


 ___
 Wiki-research-l mailing list
 Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l




--
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266

___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] wikitweets: view tweets that reference wikipedia in realtime

[Samuel Klein]

I love this tool so very much :)   thank you!

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 9:57 PM, Ed Summers e...@pobox.com wrote:

 Emilio, Taha:

 I realize this was long enough ago that you may no longer be
 interested but I finally got around to adding an archive function to
 wikitweets [1]. Every time the app collects 1000 tweets that reference
 Wikipedia it dumps them to a file on Internet Archive [2].

 One nice side effect of this is that you get a BitTorrent seed/peer
 for free [3], which makes mirroring the data pretty simple...if you
 have a BitTorrent client handy. I blogged a little bit about how it
 the archive function in wikitweets works [4].

 Best,
 //Ed

 [1] http://wikitweets.herokuapp.com
 [2] http://archive.org/download/wikitweets/wikitweets_archive.torrent
 [3] http://archive.org/download/wikitweets/wikitweets_archive.torrent
 [4] http://inkdroid.org/journal/2012/09/19/archiving-wikitweets/

 On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 6:28 PM, Taha Yasseri taha.yas...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  My appreciation too. and the same question, do you also store the
 records?
 
  bests,
  .t
 
  On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 7:14 PM, emijrp emi...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  2012/4/26 Ed Summers e...@pobox.com
 
  This is more on the experimental side of research but I just
  finished a prototype realtime visualization of tweets that reference
  Wikipedia:
 
 http://wikitweets.herokuapp.com/
 
 
  Very cool. Do you archive the tweets or they are discarded?
 
  --
  Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada. E-mail: emijrp AT gmail DOT com
  Pre-doctoral student at the University of Cádiz (Spain)
  Projects: AVBOT | StatMediaWiki | WikiEvidens | WikiPapers | WikiTeam
  Personal website: https://sites.google.com/site/emijrp/
 
 
  ___
  Wiki-research-l mailing list
  Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
 
 
 
 
  --
  Taha.
 
  ___
  Wiki-research-l mailing list
  Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
 

 ___
 Wiki-research-l mailing list
 Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l




-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Open-Access journals for papers about wikis

[Samuel Klein]

On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 3:45 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.plwrote:


 On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Samuel Klein s...@wikimedia.org wrote:
  I've been thinking recently that we should start this journal.  There
 isn't an obvious candidate, despite some of the amazing research that's
 been done, and the extreme
  transparency that allows much deeper work to be done on wiki communities
 in the future.

 I'll gladly help and support the idea. I think that just as Mathieu
 pointed out, The Journal of Peer Production is a good candidate, since
 it is already out there and running (even if low on the radar).


Great.  Starting with a dedicated issue of JOPP seems like a good thing.
 The guest editors of that issue will get useful experience, and we can
test the depth of interest among submitters and reviewers, for a specific
scope of research efforts.


 One key factor in getting ISI is a community to drive the journal


emijrp writes:

 The idea of creating a journal just for wikis is highly seductive for
me.The pillars might be:

 * peer-reviewed, but publish a list of rejected papers and the reviewers
comments
 * open-access (CC-BY-SA)
 * ask always for the datasets and offer them to download, the same for
the developed software used in the  research
 * encourage authors to publish early, publish often (as in free software)

Yes.  All of this is important (and most could be tried out in working on a
guest issue of an existing journal)
Encouragement to publish early and often requires some new form of
publication that supports iteration and early drafts in the pubs process --
not via a separate preprint site.

 * supported by donations

This can include donations from universities and institutions whose staff
are submitting to the journal.   I suspect a young, inexpensive journal
that isn't tied to a tradition of expensie overhead could be supported by a
dozen universities that have relevant departments (like CCI and MIT,
various complexity institutes, and centers for collaborative study or
internet  society).

 And... we can open a wiki where those who want can write papers in a
collaborative and public way. You can  start a new paper with colleagues
or ask for volunteers authors interested in joining to your idea. When
 authors think that paper is finished and stable, they submit it to the
journal and it is peer-reviewed again and  published or discarded and
returned to the wiki for improvements.

That sounds like a fine intermediary, while more elaborate tech is being
discussed.   It is important to have crisply defined and uniformly
implemented peer review, not soft after publication peer review -- at
least for the papers that are published with the highest stamp of peer
approval.  It would be good to also have lower stamps of approval - and
archived permalinkable copies of their work - for those who simply publish
all of their work and data.

 Perhaps we may join efforts with the Wikimedia Research Newsletter? And
start a page in meta:? ; )

That would be great if WRN is interested :-)   Again, joining forces to dit
a one-time issue of an existing journal is a good way to see what it would
be like.

SJ
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Open-Access journals for papers about wikis

[Samuel Klein]

I've been thinking recently that we should start this journal.  There isn't
an obvious candidate, despite some of the amazing research that's been
done, and the extreme transparency that allows much deeper work to be done
on wiki communities in the future.

Would some of the Wikipapers folks be interested in working on this?  I'm
thinking of something like a law-review model where much peer review
happens by young researchers that are more junior (professionally) than the
submitted papers, but very very skilled at review and editorial technique.
 Which fits our community as well as it does lawyers.

SJ

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:49 AM, emijrp emi...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi all;

 I like the journals that work under the same (or similar) principles of
 free knowledge projects, a.k.a. open-access journals.

 I would like to publish some paper regarding to wikis in that kind of OA
 publications, do you have any recommendation?

 I found First Monday, which is peer-reviewed and OA, but it is not indexed
 in ISI. Any more suggestions?

 Thanks.

 Regards,
 emijrp

 --
 Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada. E-mail: emijrp AT gmail DOT com
 Pre-doctoral student at the University of Cádiz (Spain)
 Projects: AVBOT http://code.google.com/p/avbot/ | 
 StatMediaWikihttp://statmediawiki.forja.rediris.es
 | WikiEvidens http://code.google.com/p/wikievidens/ | 
 WikiPapershttp://wikipapers.referata.com
 | WikiTeam http://code.google.com/p/wikiteam/
 Personal website: https://sites.google.com/site/emijrp/


 ___
 Wiki-research-l mailing list
 Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l




-- 
Samuel Klein  identi.ca:sj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529
4266
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Open-Access journals for papers about wikis

[Samuel Klein]

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Jodi Schneider jschnei...@pobox.comwrote:

 Getting First Monday indexed in ISI would be a good step.


Yes.


 I have helped start an open access journal before [1] so I'd be happy to
 give advice. But generally, I don't think that we need more journals.


Well, we definitely need more arXiv topic areas or equivalents outside the
hard sciences.
People should be able to publish their work as quickly as they like in a
professional way, especially in fields that change rapidly and need to
benefit from collaborating with one another.

SJ
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Open-Access journals for papers about wikis

[Samuel Klein]

I don't know... how about:

You have a good project idea someone should do.  You publish it.
You know some people doing interesting work in the area who need x,y,z to
tackle such a project, and add that.
You start a project.  You publish a pointer and project name.
Some collaborators join.  You publish names.
You get a target to take data from, have a meeting, and publish.
You finalize procedures and start implementing.  and publish.
You get first data.  and publish.
You get context for the data.  And publish.
You find time to look at the data, organize the context, add a summary, and
publish.
You compile a full schedule of data, and run analysis, publishing your
error logs and lab notebook pages on the fly.
You give a paper bag talk with slides (and publish)
You draft an abstract for peer review (and publish)
You finish an abstract and submit it for review (a. p.)
You get feedback from the journal you submitted to (a. p.) and revise (a.
p.)
You get included in a major quarterly Journal, with polish (a. p.)
You get public commentary, cites, criticism; and make better talk slides
(a. p.)
You add suggestions for your students or others to extend the work in
future papers (a. p.)

Various fields adopt various subsets of the above; most have only a handful
towards the end.


On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Ward Cunningham w...@c2.com wrote:

 On Sep 14, 2012, at 11:09 AM, Samuel Klein wrote:

 People should be able to publish their work as quickly as they like in a
 professional way, especially in fields that change rapidly and need to
 benefit from collaborating with one another.


 Hmm. What is the quickest way that we would ever want to publish our work?
 If we push on this hard enough we might change the nature of work. (Yes, I
 know, much in academia conspires against quick. Same for business and
 probably dating. But as a thought experiment, how quick could quick be?)


 ___
 Wiki-research-l mailing list
 Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l




-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Open-Access journals for papers about

[Samuel Klein]

That's awesome.  Are they also a candidate for more public recognition and
attention?  (and would they consider hosting a new wiki journal if there
was enough interest in such an issue?)

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Mathieu ONeil mathieu.on...@anu.edu.auwrote:

 Hi all

 The Journal of Peer Production would be happy to host a wiki / WP special
 issue.
 http://peerproduction.net/

 JoPP is a peer reviewed, open access journal which makes reviewer reports
 and initial submissions available as well a completed peer reviewed
 articles (like on WP where you can look at article history pages).

 cheers

 Mathieu

 On 09/14/12, wiki-research-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:

 Send Wiki-research-l mailing list submissions to
 wiki-research-l@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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org

 You can reach the person managing the list at
 wiki-research-l-ow...@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: Open-Access journals for papers about wikis (Ward Cunningham)
2. Re: Open-Access journals for papers about wikis (Samuel Klein)
3. Re: Open-Access journals for papers about wikis (Ward Cunningham)
4. Re: Open-Access journals for papers about wikis (Ward Cunningham)


 --

 Message: 1
 Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 11:18:25 -0700
 From: Ward Cunningham w...@c2.com
 To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
 wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Open-Access journals for papers about
 wikis
 Message-ID: f852e66b-8e23-4abb-8887-7b4977b31...@c2.com
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

 On Sep 14, 2012, at 11:09 AM, Samuel Klein wrote:

  People should be able to publish their work as quickly as they like in a
 professional way, especially in fields that change rapidly and need to
 benefit from collaborating with one another.

 Hmm. What is the quickest way that we would ever want to publish our work?
 If we push on this hard enough we might change the nature of work. (Yes, I
 know, much in academia conspires against quick. Same for business and
 probably dating. But as a thought experiment, how quick could quick be?)

 -- next part --
 An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
 URL: 
 http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/attachments/20120914/1216e620/attachment-0001.html
 

 --

 Message: 2
 Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 14:31:20 -0400
 From: Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com
 To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
 wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Open-Access journals for papers about
 wikis
 Message-ID:
 CAAtU9W+-FFpcbe5SycvkYDVi+mguBjXGTATq=7jqqerqwmp...@mail.gmail.com
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

 I don't know... how about:

 You have a good project idea someone should do.  You publish it.
 You know some people doing interesting work in the area who need x,y,z to
 tackle such a project, and add that.
 You start a project.  You publish a pointer and project name.
 Some collaborators join.  You publish names.
 You get a target to take data from, have a meeting, and publish.
 You finalize procedures and start implementing.  and publish.
 You get first data.  and publish.
 You get context for the data.  And publish.
 You find time to look at the data, organize the context, add a summary, and
 publish.
 You compile a full schedule of data, and run analysis, publishing your
 error logs and lab notebook pages on the fly.
 You give a paper bag talk with slides (and publish)
 You draft an abstract for peer review (and publish)
 You finish an abstract and submit it for review (a. p.)
 You get feedback from the journal you submitted to (a. p.) and revise (a.
 p.)
 You get included in a major quarterly Journal, with polish (a. p.)
 You get public commentary, cites, criticism; and make better talk slides
 (a. p.)
 You add suggestions for your students or others to extend the work in
 future papers (a. p.)

 Various fields adopt various subsets of the above; most have only a handful
 towards the end.


 On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Ward Cunningham w...@c2.com wrote:

  On Sep 14, 2012, at 11:09 AM, Samuel Klein wrote:
 
  People should be able to publish their work as quickly as they like in a
  professional way, especially in fields that change rapidly and need to
  benefit from collaborating with one another.
 
 
  Hmm. What is the quickest way that we would ever want to publish our
 work?
  If we push on this hard enough we might change the nature of work. (Yes,
 I
  know, much in academia conspires against quick. Same for business and
  probably dating

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Citizendium full XML dump: 168, 262 pages and 753, 651 revisions

[Samuel Klein]

Just wow...  Thank you WikiTeam and task force!  Is scraperwiki involved?
 SJ

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 5:18 AM, emijrp emi...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi;

 I think this is the first time a full XML dump of Citizendium is publicly
 available[1] (CZ offers dumps but only the last revision for each
 article[2], and our previously efforts generated corrupted and incomplete
 dumps). It contains 168,262 pages and 753,651 revisions (9 GB, 99 MB in
 7z). I think it may be useful for researchers, including quality analysis.

 It was generated using WikiTeam tools.[3] This is part of our task force
 to make backups of thousands of wikis around the Internet.[4]

 Regards,
 emijrp

 [1] http://archive.org/details/wiki-encitizendiumorg
 [2] http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Downloads
 [3] http://code.google.com/p/wikiteam/
 [4] http://code.google.com/p/wikiteam/wiki/AvailableBackups

 --
 Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada. E-mail: emijrp AT gmail DOT com
 Pre-doctoral student at the University of Cádiz (Spain)
 Projects: AVBOT http://code.google.com/p/avbot/ | 
 StatMediaWikihttp://statmediawiki.forja.rediris.es
 | WikiEvidens http://code.google.com/p/wikievidens/ | 
 WikiPapershttp://wikipapers.referata.com
 | WikiTeam http://code.google.com/p/wikiteam/
 Personal website: https://sites.google.com/site/emijrp/


 ___
 Wiki-research-l mailing list
 Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l




-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] altmetrics and wikipedia

[Samuel Klein]

Nice information, thanks for sharing!

I think it's quite low.  In that
a) PLoS is a sister project which we should be supporting and
following closely; many of their editors are wikipedians
b) Every one of their articles is about a notable topic and a reliable
primary source
c) We could generate a useful todo list by finding a home for every
article they choose to publish.

This reminds me of the way that our inclusion of the CC-SA khan
academy videos - all those published up until mid-2010 at least - on
commons is remarkably low, even though they are now already available
transcoded into ogv.  Until a group of editors actively sees a source
of valuable knowledge as such and as something to incorporate, we
often don't use knowledge that is already out there, even when freely
licensed.

SJ

___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Why Do You Contribute to Wikipedia?

[Samuel Klein]

Hello,

The research committee may have thought about this in the past; I'm
asking here because I'm not sure:

Is there some treatment online of how to reply to these sorts of polls
and surveys, to help groups of researchers working over similar
timeframes to consolidate their efforts?  Collaborating in the
structure and framing and proposed analysis, if not in the actual
running of a survey and gathering of data, just as we collaborate on
articles in a shared namespace?  That would both produce better
results and turn what could be a researcher-user relationship into a
more general long-term collaboration devoted to understanding the
nature of what we all do.

The process of having different research groups and perspectives
discuss their approach, could both clear up some common
misunderstandings or half-familiarities, and encourage development of
meta-research topics on wiki pages.  So that  we would aggregate and
improve information by different researchers.  Things like the
conduction of wiki surveys and developing meaningful inter-survey
correlations and the publishing of raw data sets and error
calculations could be turned into wiki-monographs that would enhance
the field.

This would also provide a constructive outlet for both success stories
and frustration stories of researchers -- who often leave without
sharing those final thoughts.

SJ



On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 9:43 PM, Audrey Abeyta audrey.abe...@gmail.com wrote:
 Dear Wikipedia contributors,

 Your valuable opinions are needed regarding users' motivations to contribute
 to Wikipedia. This topic is currently investigated by Audrey Abeyta, an
 undergraduate student at the University of California, Santa Barbara. You
 can read a more detailed description of the project
 here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Motivations_to_Contribute_to_Wikipedia

 Those willing to participate in this study will complete a brief online
 questionnaire, which is completely anonymous and will take approximately ten
 minutes. The questionnaire can be accessed
 here: https://us1.us.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_8ixU9RkozemzC4s.

 The researcher hopes to attain a sample size of at least 100 Wikipedians; as
 of now, only 52 have responded. Your contributions to this project's
 validity are invaluable!

 A final draft of the paper will be made available to the Wikipedia
 community.

 If you have any questions or concerns about this study, please contact
 Audrey Abeyta at audrey.abe...@gmail.com.

 Thank you in advance for your participation!

 ___
 Wiki-research-l mailing list
 Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l




-- 
Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266

___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Foundation-l] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia (from the Chronicle) + some citation discussions

[Samuel Klein]

 citations for people who want to
explore the squabble further.  But Wikipedia's mission will be
undercut if experts - or people who imagine themselves to be experts -
start deleting stuff.

I would recommend that if this is a place where the conventional
wisdom is very wrong, you start a new page on the controversy itself,
with citations to as wide a variety of points of view as you can find,
and then link current pages to your new page.

My experience with Wikipedia is that you can tell if you are having an
impact by what you initiate, not what you inscribe in stone.

GLMcColm





On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 5:12 AM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 On 14/02/12 02:39, Achal Prabhala wrote:
  The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia

 By Timothy Messer-Kruse

 [...]
 My improvement lasted five minutes before a Wiki-cop scolded me, I
 hope you will familiarize yourself with some of Wikipedia's policies,
 such as verifiability and undue weight. If all historians save one say
 that the sky was green in 1888, our policies require that we write
 'Most historians write that the sky was green, but one says the sky
 was blue.' ... As individual editors, we're not in the business of
 weighing claims, just reporting what reliable sources write.

 There are lots of places on Wikipedia where misconceptions have been
 summarily dealt with, respectable sources criticised and facts brought
 to light. Unfortunately, most academics don't have time for the edit
 wars, lengthy talk page discussions and RFCs that are sometimes
 required to overcome inertia.

 The text of Messer-Kruse's article doesn't show much understanding of
 this aspect of Wikipedia. But publishing it could be seen as canny. It
 should be effective at recruiting new editors and bringing more
 attention to the primary sources in question. The article is being
 actively edited along those lines.

 -- Tim Starling


 ___
 foundation-l mailing list
 foundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l



--
David Goodman

DGG at the enWP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


-- 
Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266

___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Manypedia: Compare Linguistic Points Of View (LPOV) of Wikipedia communities

[Samuel Klein]

Federico,

This is a great initiative, by the way.  Good luck with this aspect of
your project -- I hope that it flourishes and that the quality of
language-translation improves to make this an essential reference when
reading Wikipedia (particularly on controversial topics).

A next step would be to identify topics which seem to be given
dramatically different treatment on different projects -- with little
to no overlap in sources, or a significant difference in the ratio of
positive to negative adjectives, or some metric of volatility of
content within any of those single languages.

Sam.

On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 12:29 PM, fox fo...@anche.no wrote:
 Hi all!
 As part of our investigation of the social side of Wikipedia in SoNet
 group at Fondazione Bruno Kessler (Trento - Italy), Paolo Massa and I
 created Manypedia.

 http://manypedia.com/

 On Manypedia, you compare Linguistic Points Of View (LPOV) of different
 language Wikipedias. For example (but this is just one of the many
 possible comparisons), are you wondering if the community of editors in
 the English, Arabic and Hebrew Wikipedias are crystallizing different
 histories of the Gaza War? Now you can check “Gaza War” page from
 English and Arabic Wikipedia (both translated into English) or from
 Hebrew Wikipedia (translated into English).
 Manypedia, by using the Google Translate API, automatically translates
 the compared page in a language you don’t know into the language you
 know. And this is not limited to English as first language. For example
 you can search a page in the Italian Wikipedia (or in 56 languages
 Wikipedias) and compare it with the same page from the French Wikipedia
 but translated into Italian. In this way you can check the differences
 of the page from another language Wikipedia even if you don’t know that
 language.

 We hope that this project will sound interesting to you and maybe you
 could help us to make it better. We're really interested in any kind of
 feedback! Please write us!

 p.s.: If you're facebook addicted please like Manypedia ;)
 http://www.facebook.com/pages/Manypedia/202808583098332


 Federico Scrinzi

 --
 f.

  I didn't try, I succeeded
  (Dr. Sheldon Cooper, PhD)

 ()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
 /\  www.asciiribbon.org   - against proprietary attachments


 ___
 Wiki-research-l mailing list
 Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l





-- 
Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266

___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Research Index

[Samuel Klein]

Ok!  I'm all for opening up channels to wider use :)  Nice work, again,  SJ


On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Dario Taraborelli
dtarabore...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Hi Sam,

 the IRC channel actually predates the Wikimedia Research Index project. It 
 was originally created to support the activity of the Research Committee and 
 we thought we could just open it up to host all research-related discussions.

 Dario

 On Jul 12, 2011, at 1:24 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:

 This looks awesome, Dario!

 One suggestion:

 On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Dario Taraborelli
 dtarabore...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 we created a dedicated IRC channel on Freenode as a friendly place to
 discuss in real time issues of relevance to Wikimedia research

 At the moment we have a surplus of low-traffic wikis, mailing lists,
 and channels: not a good design pattern.

 Have you considered using an existing, inactive channel for this?
 #wikimedia would be fine, and the cross-pollination of people not on
 this mailing list may be healthy.

 Sam.

 We hope with this initiative to increase the volume, speed, impact and
 potential audience of research that helps improve our understanding of
 Wikimedia projects and communities.

 ___
 Wiki-research-l mailing list
 Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l


 ___
 Wiki-research-l mailing list
 Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l




-- 
Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266

___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Foundation-l] Wikipedia dumps downloader

[Samuel Klein]

On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 7:10 AM, emijrp emi...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi SJ;

 You know that that is an old item in our TODO list ; )

I know, I know...

I don't mean to Domas by asking after the Commons dump every time
dumps of any kind comes up.

It's just so inspiring to imagine that consolidated visual and
auditory beauty being mirrored all around the world, it is difficult
to resist.

SJ.

 I heard that Platonides developed a script for that task long time ago.

 Platonides, are you there?

 Regards,
 emijrp

 2011/6/27 Samuel Klein sjkl...@hcs.harvard.edu

 Thank you, Emijrp!

 What about the dump of Commons images?   [for those with 10TB to spare]

 SJ

 On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 8:53 AM, emijrp emi...@gmail.com wrote:
  Hi all;
 
  Can you imagine a day when Wikipedia is added to this list?[1]
 
  WikiTeam have developed a script[2] to download all the Wikipedia dumps
 (and
  her sister projects) from dumps.wikimedia.org. It sorts in folders and
  checks md5sum. It only works on Linux (it uses wget).
 
  You will need about 100GB to download all the 7z files.
 
  Save our memory.
 
  Regards,
  emijrp
 
  [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_libraries
  [2]
 
 http://code.google.com/p/wikiteam/source/browse/trunk/wikipediadownloader.py
 
  ___
  Wiki-research-l mailing list
  Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
 
 



 --
 Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529
 4266

 ___
 Wiki-research-l mailing list
 Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

 ___
 foundation-l mailing list
 foundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l





-- 
Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266

___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] wikistream: displays wikipedia updates in realtime

[Samuel Klein]

Fancy options:

- Choose individual Projects [just look at wiktionary, for instance]
- Choose a color scheme or audio scheme to go with it [ rcbirds comes
to mind :) ]
- Add small languages
- Include or ignore bots, period

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Ziko van Dijk zvand...@googlemail.com wrote:
 Hello,

 Congratulations; the next step would be to let choose which language
 versions (or other Wikimedia projects) you want to have included?

 Kind regards
 Ziko

 2011/6/16 fox fo...@anche.no:
 Il 16/06/2011 06:40, Ed Summers ha scritto:
 I've been looking to experiment with node.js lately and created a
 little toy webapp that displays updates from the major language
 wikipedias in real time


 It's really nice, i think that would be great having an API to use that
 data for other web apps (for example to get the last page that has been
 edited from the english wikipedia in JSON or XML format).

 Good job ;)

 --
 f.

  I didn't try, I succeeded
  (Dr. Sheldon Cooper, PhD)

 ()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
 /\  www.asciiribbon.org   - against proprietary attachments


 ___
 Wiki-research-l mailing list
 Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l





 --
 Ziko van Dijk
 The Netherlands
 http://zikoblog.wordpress.com/

 ___
 Wiki-research-l mailing list
 Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l




-- 
Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266

___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] wikistream: displays wikipedia updates in realtime

[Samuel Klein]

Without changing the concept or algorithm much, I'd like to see a
three column version, with the left-most column being for all edits --
with speed smoothed out over time (time delay 30 seconds, average it
out); the middle one being edits changing over 100 chars that aren't
immediately reverted (time-delayed 1 min?), and the left column being
edits changing over 1,000 chars that aren't quickly reverted
(time-delayed 2 minutes?), and aren't by bots or huggle.

SJ


On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 12:40 AM, Ed Summers e...@pobox.com wrote:
 I've been looking to experiment with node.js lately and created a
 little toy webapp that displays updates from the major language
 wikipedias in real time:

    http://wikistream.inkdroid.org

 Perhaps like you, I've often tried to convey to folks in the GLAM
 sector (Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums) just how much
 Wikipedia is actively edited. GLAM institutions are increasingly
 interested in digital curation and I've sometimes displayed the IRC
 activity at workshops to demonstrate the sheer number of people (and
 bots) that are actively engaged in improving the content there...with
 the hopes of making the Wikipedia platform part of their curation
 strategy.

 Anyhow, I'd be interested in any feedback you might have about wikistream.

 //Ed

 ___
 Wiki-research-l mailing list
 Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l




-- 
Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266

___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [acawiki-general] Proposal: new hosting for AcaWiki

[Samuel Klein]

On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Mike Linksvayer m...@gondwanaland.com wrote:

 Jodi has also been really involved in the project, and Mako has been so far
 the only massive contributor. The project has probably been a success solely
 on the grounds of capturing and explaining some of the knowledge passing
 through Mako's brain. :-)

Heh :)

 Neeru should speak up on disposition of the project, but IMO:
 * Folding into a WMF project would be by far the best outcome, whatever
 changes that would entail

As a reader more than a user to date, I'd like to see this happen as
well, and would be interested in helping.  The knowledge AcaWiki
gathers is important, and deserves more visibility and long-term
support.

SJ

___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Proposal: build a wiki literature review wiki-style

[Samuel Klein]

On AcaWiki:

This sounds in line with  AcaWiki's larger goal, and the small
community there is generally open to new ideas about how to structure
pages and data.  I also think the project would be appropriate as a
Wikimedia project, which would address many of the self-hosting issues
and tie into similar work on a WikiScholar project.  No need to have
multiple tiny projects when a single one would do.

 I think we want to specifically target
 our annotated bibliography to researchers, but AcaWiki appears to be
 targeting laypeople as well as researchers (and IMO it would be very
 tricky to do both well).

You could allow each biblio page to decide who its audience is.  If
there is ever a conflict between a lay and a specialist audience, you
can have two sets of annotations.  I'd like to see this happen in
practice before optimizing against it.

 * I don't think the focus on summaries is right. I think we need a
 structured infobox plus semi-structured text (e.g. sections for
 contributions, evidence, weaknesses, questions).

Again, I think both could be appropriate for a stub bibliography page;
and that a great one would include both a summary and structured
sections and infobox data.  [acawiki does like infobox-style
structure]

 * It doesn't look like a MediaWiki. Since the MW software is so

This is easy to fix -- people who like the current acawiki look can
use their own skin.


On Data-scraping and WikiScholar parallels:

 My only experience with scraping pages is with Zotero, and it does it
 beautifully. I assume (but don't know) that the current generation of
 other bibliography software would also do a good job. Anyway, Zotero has
 a huge support community, and scrapers for major sources (including
 Google Scholar for articles and Amazon for books) are kept very well up
 to date for the most part.

 Perhaps I'm just unlucky, then - I've only ever tried it on ACM papers
 (which it failed to do well, so I stopped).

Brian Mingus, who is working on WikiScholar (another related project
which may be suitable) has a great deal of exprience with scraping,
both using APIs and otherwise, and that is the foundation of his
effort.

 I don't know anything about how article IDs works in Zotero, but how to
 build a unique ID for each is an interesting, subtle, and important
 problem.

This is important, and has also been discussed elsewhere.  Some of
this discussion would be appropriate here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:WikiScholar

-- 
Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266

___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Google ngrams

[Samuel Klein]

I was just playing with this... remarkable.   Someone should do the
same with Wikipedia's text over time, which would provide even crisper
comparisons [as within categories].

http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=art,technology,wwwyear_start=1950year_end=2008corpus=5smoothing=4

On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 5:28 PM, emijrp emi...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi all;

 I leave this link here... http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/datasets

 An example
 http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=collaborativeyear_start=1920year_end=corpus=0smoothing=3

 Regards,
 emijrp

 ___
 Wiki-research-l mailing list
 Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l





-- 
Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266

___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Foundation-l] WikiCite - new WMF project? Was: UPEI's proposal for a universal citation index

[Samuel Klein]

Jakob writes:
 there already *are* communities that collect and share bibliographic data

I would be happy if anyone does what I was describing; no point in
reinventing what already exists.  But I have not found it:

I mean a public collection of citations, with reader-editable
commentary and categorization, for published works.  Something that
Open Library could link to from each of its books, that arXiv.org and
PLoS could link to from each of its articles.   Something that, for
better or worse, Wikipedia articles could link to also, when they are
cited as sources.


Jodi Schneider jodi.schnei...@deri.org wrote:

 I think focusing on Wikimedia's citation needs is the most promising,
 especially if this is intended to be a WMF project.

Agreed.  That is clearly the place to start, as it was with Commons.

And, as with Commons, the project should be free to develop its own
scope, and be more than a servant project to the others.  That scope
may be grand (a collection of all educational freely licensed media; a
general collection of citations), but shouldn't keep us from getting
started now.

 As for mission -- yes -- let's talk about what problem we're trying to
 solve. Two central ones come to mind:
 1. Improve verifiability by making it possible to start with a source and
 verify all claims made by referencing that source [1]
 2. Make it easier for editors to give references, and readers to use them [2]
 others?  [3]

3. Enable commenting on sources, to discuss their reliability and
notability, in a shared place.  (Note the value of having a
multilingual discussion here: currently notions of notability and
reliability can change a great deal across language barriers)

4. Enable discussing splitting or merging sources, or providing
disambiguations when different people are confusingly using a single
citation to refer to more than one source.

 To figure out what the right problems are, I think it would help to look at
 the pain points -- and their solutions -- the hacks and proposals related to
 citations. Hacks include plugins and templates people have made to make
 MediaWiki more citation-friendly. Proposals include the ones on strategy wiki.

 Some of the hacks and proposals are listed here:
 http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Proposals_related_to_citations
 Could you add other hacks, proposals, and conversations...?

Thanks for that link.

Sam.


 [1] This can be done using backlinks.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Greenwood%26Earnshaw  )
 [2] I think of this as actionable references -- we'd have to explain
 exactly what the desirable qualities are. Adding to bilbiographic managers
 in one click is one of mine. :)
 [3] Other side-effects might be helping to identify what's highly cited in
 Wikipedia (which would be interesting -- and might help prioritize
 Wikisource additions), automatically adding quotes to Wikiquote, ...


-- 
Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj

___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Fwd: modern foundations of scientific consensus

[Samuel Klein]

The idea is to have a wiki-project with an entry for every cited
source, author, and publication -- including critical secondary
sources that exist only to comment on sources/authors/publications.

Aggregate information about the reliability of these sources, where
they are used, how they are discussed and linked together.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiTextrose
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikicite

The wikitextrose proposal aims to gather data about these types of
sources, and links between them.

The wikicite proposal aims to organize citable statements on other
wiki projects so that one can trace the origins of the idea expressed
back to sources.

SJ


On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 5:51 AM, Jodi Schneider jodi.schnei...@deri.org wrote:
 Samuel,

 This is great!

 What's the idea for a WikiCite project?

 -Jodi

 On 20 Jun 2010, at 22:44, Samuel Klein wrote:

 Some motivation for a proper WikiCite project.     --sj


 === Begin forwarded message ==
 How citation distortions create unfounded authority: analysis of a
 citation network
        http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/339/jul20_3/b2680


 Abstract:

 Objective -To understand belief in a specific scientific claim by
 studying the pattern of citations among papers stating it.

 Design - A complete citation network was constructed from all PubMed
 indexed English literature papers addressing the belief that \u03b2
 amyloid, a protein accumulated in the brain in Alzheimer\u2019s
 disease, is produced by and injures skeletal muscle of patients with
 inclusion body myositis. Social network theory and graph theory were
 used to analyse this network.

 Main outcome measures - Citation bias, amplification, and invention,
 and their effects on determining authority.

 Results:
 The network contained 242 papers and 675 citations addressing the
 belief, with 220 553 citation paths supporting it. Unfounded authority
 was established by citation bias against papers that refuted or
 weakened the belief; amplification, the marked expansion of the belief
 system by papers presenting no data addressing it; and forms of
 invention such as the conversion of hypothesis into fact through
 citation alone. Extension of this network into text within grants
 funded by the National Institutes of Health
 and obtained through the Freedom of Information Act showed the same
 phenomena present and sometimes used to justify requests for funding.

 Conclusion:
 Citation is both an impartial scholarly method and a powerful form of
 social communication. Through distortions in its social use that
 include bias, amplification, and invention, citation can be used to
 generate
 information cascades resulting in unfounded authority of claims.
 Construction and analysis of a claim specific citation network may
 clarify the nature of a published belief system and expose distorted
 methods of social citation.




 --
 Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj



 --
 Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj

 ___
 Wiki-research-l mailing list
 Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l


 ___
 Wiki-research-l mailing list
 Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l




-- 
Samuel Klein  identi.ca:sj   w:user:sj

___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: modern foundations of scientific consensus

[Samuel Klein]

Some motivation for a proper WikiCite project.     --sj


=== Begin forwarded message ==
How citation distortions create unfounded authority: analysis of a
citation network
       http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/339/jul20_3/b2680


Abstract:

Objective -To understand belief in a specific scientific claim by
studying the pattern of citations among papers stating it.

Design - A complete citation network was constructed from all PubMed
indexed English literature papers addressing the belief that \u03b2
amyloid, a protein accumulated in the brain in Alzheimer\u2019s
disease, is produced by and injures skeletal muscle of patients with
inclusion body myositis. Social network theory and graph theory were
used to analyse this network.

Main outcome measures - Citation bias, amplification, and invention,
and their effects on determining authority.

Results:
The network contained 242 papers and 675 citations addressing the
belief, with 220 553 citation paths supporting it. Unfounded authority
was established by citation bias against papers that refuted or
weakened the belief; amplification, the marked expansion of the belief
system by papers presenting no data addressing it; and forms of
invention such as the conversion of hypothesis into fact through
citation alone. Extension of this network into text within grants
funded by the National Institutes of Health
and obtained through the Freedom of Information Act showed the same
phenomena present and sometimes used to justify requests for funding.

Conclusion:
Citation is both an impartial scholarly method and a powerful form of
social communication. Through distortions in its social use that
include bias, amplification, and invention, citation can be used to
generate
information cascades resulting in unfounded authority of claims.
Construction and analysis of a claim specific citation network may
clarify the nature of a published belief system and expose distorted
methods of social citation.




--
Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj



-- 
Samuel Klein  identi.ca:sj   w:user:sj

___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l