[Wiki-research-l] "Wikipedia and/as Data" symposium 19 June

[Heather Ford]

Hi wiki-researcher(s),
We’re gearing up for our 2024 wikihistories symposium, this year held on June 
19 in-person and just before the International Communication Association’s 
annual conference in Brisbane, Australia! You’ll find the call for submissions 
below and on the wikihistories website 
here.<https://wikihistories.net/conference/wikihistories-2024-wikipedia-and-as-data/>
 Please let me know if you have any questions.
All best,
Heather.

Dr Heather Ford
Associate Professor, Digital and Social 
Media<https://can01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.uts.edu.au%2Ffuture-students%2Fcommunication%2Fdigital-and-social-media=05%7C01%7Cherve_saint-louis%40uqac.ca%7Cd75bd2cfb53340aa33ea08daf50c7616%7Cc97978b1bd4c44b59bbb20215efdf611%7C1%7C0%7C638091731143530605%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=UVF3GsmbsPqksCLwOqTbLVIYIYebejCFq0u0w1ycbAM%3D=0>,
 School of 
Communication<https://can01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.uts.edu.au%2Ffuture-students%2Fcommunication%2Fabout-communication%2Fwelcome-school-communication=05%7C01%7Cherve_saint-louis%40uqac.ca%7Cd75bd2cfb53340aa33ea08daf50c7616%7Cc97978b1bd4c44b59bbb20215efdf611%7C1%7C0%7C638091731143530605%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=hkzKWZ04BZkXl2oZ7OOUHRDOU4I7xrTZ1RnKDtVBMMA%3D=0>,
 University of Technology, 
Sydney<https://can01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.uts.edu.au%2F=05%7C01%7Cherve_saint-louis%40uqac.ca%7Cd75bd2cfb53340aa33ea08daf50c7616%7Cc97978b1bd4c44b59bbb20215efdf611%7C1%7C0%7C638091731143530605%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=NQkD%2BAusrNNdzMP2LKxSJ4KngvlHI7gNL4bbKEFZspE%3D=0>
 (UTS)
Chief Investigator: http://wikihistories.net | Project Lead: 
www.questionmachines.net<https://can01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.questionmachines.net%2F=05%7C01%7Cherve_saint-louis%40uqac.ca%7Cd75bd2cfb53340aa33ea08daf50c7616%7Cc97978b1bd4c44b59bbb20215efdf611%7C1%7C0%7C638091731143530605%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=ZfKmCry3GrFZ2CZdLq4SK6nhLdTR1Qtqqfg0C1leeXM%3D=0>
Affiliate: UTS Data Science 
Institute<https://can01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.uts.edu.au%2Fdata-science-institute=05%7C01%7Cherve_saint-louis%40uqac.ca%7Cd75bd2cfb53340aa33ea08daf50c7616%7Cc97978b1bd4c44b59bbb20215efdf611%7C1%7C0%7C638091731143530605%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=Kf5QTE%2FhW2MDZRn5dWgHBAp4S95oWbr%2FfMda8tgETtw%3D=0>
 | Associate: UTS Centre for Media 
Transition<https://can01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.uts.edu.au%2Fresearch-and-teaching%2Four-research%2Fcentre-media-transition=05%7C01%7Cherve_saint-louis%40uqac.ca%7Cd75bd2cfb53340aa33ea08daf50c7616%7Cc97978b1bd4c44b59bbb20215efdf611%7C1%7C0%7C638091731143530605%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=T9an9tKAeNnj1vsavLDDIYKs6DarTp6IOoVQla768KY%3D=0>
 | Associate Member: UTS Centre for Research on Education in a Digital 
Society<https://can01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.uts.edu.au%2Fresearch-and-teaching%2Four-research%2Fcentre-research-education-digital-society=05%7C01%7Cherve_saint-louis%40uqac.ca%7Cd75bd2cfb53340aa33ea08daf50c7616%7Cc97978b1bd4c44b59bbb20215efdf611%7C1%7C0%7C638091731143530605%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=pU%2BfGe%2Bqqtdm1H8VWQ0x0cNYFwZ6Iy4V%2B%2F6UGFFOzDI%3D=0>
w: 
hblog.org<https://can01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fhblog.org%2F=05%7C01%7Cherve_saint-louis%40uqac.ca%7Cd75bd2cfb53340aa33ea08daf50c7616%7Cc97978b1bd4c44b59bbb20215efdf611%7C1%7C0%7C638091731143530605%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=LaEBm4cKIY5IaKHIbYzznssTpFlJHCAGks6yFCbeP2E%3D=0>
 / t: 
@hfordsa<https://can01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.twitter.com%2Fhfordsa=05%7C01%7Cherve_saint-louis%40uqac.ca%7Cd75bd2cfb53340aa33ea08daf50c7616%7Cc97978b1bd4c44b59bbb20215efdf611%7C1%7C0%7C638091731143530605%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=4eOUFANhnT8tF2SEBOuep3vxRzsyDV5teT86bGqBlQI%3D=0>
 / pronouns: she/her

Latest journal article: with Andrew Iliadis, “Wikidata as Semantic 
Infrastructure: Knowledge Representation, Data Labor, and Truth in a 
More-Than-Technical 
Project<https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/20563051231195552>.” Social 
Media + Society Journal
Latest book: “Writing the Revolution: Wiki

[Wiki-research-l] 2023 wikihistories symposium: Registration now open

[Heather Ford]

Registration is now open for the 2023 (online) wikihistories symposium on the 
7th and 8th of June (see https://wikihistories.net/2023-conference/). Over the 
two days of the event we'll be talking about Wikipedia and its implications for 
memory (and forgetting).

All best,
Heather.
---
Dr Heather Ford
Associate Professor and Head of Discipline, Digital and Social 
Media<https://can01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.uts.edu.au%2Ffuture-students%2Fcommunication%2Fdigital-and-social-media=05%7C01%7Cherve_saint-louis%40uqac.ca%7Cd75bd2cfb53340aa33ea08daf50c7616%7Cc97978b1bd4c44b59bbb20215efdf611%7C1%7C0%7C638091731143530605%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=UVF3GsmbsPqksCLwOqTbLVIYIYebejCFq0u0w1ycbAM%3D=0>
School of 
Communication<https://can01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.uts.edu.au%2Ffuture-students%2Fcommunication%2Fabout-communication%2Fwelcome-school-communication=05%7C01%7Cherve_saint-louis%40uqac.ca%7Cd75bd2cfb53340aa33ea08daf50c7616%7Cc97978b1bd4c44b59bbb20215efdf611%7C1%7C0%7C638091731143530605%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=hkzKWZ04BZkXl2oZ7OOUHRDOU4I7xrTZ1RnKDtVBMMA%3D=0>,
 University of Technology, 
Sydney<https://can01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.uts.edu.au%2F=05%7C01%7Cherve_saint-louis%40uqac.ca%7Cd75bd2cfb53340aa33ea08daf50c7616%7Cc97978b1bd4c44b59bbb20215efdf611%7C1%7C0%7C638091731143530605%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=NQkD%2BAusrNNdzMP2LKxSJ4KngvlHI7gNL4bbKEFZspE%3D=0>
 (UTS)
Lead CI: http://wikihistories.net | Project Lead: 
www.questionmachines.net<https://can01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.questionmachines.net%2F=05%7C01%7Cherve_saint-louis%40uqac.ca%7Cd75bd2cfb53340aa33ea08daf50c7616%7Cc97978b1bd4c44b59bbb20215efdf611%7C1%7C0%7C638091731143530605%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=ZfKmCry3GrFZ2CZdLq4SK6nhLdTR1Qtqqfg0C1leeXM%3D=0>
Affiliate: UTS Data Science 
Institute<https://can01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.uts.edu.au%2Fdata-science-institute=05%7C01%7Cherve_saint-louis%40uqac.ca%7Cd75bd2cfb53340aa33ea08daf50c7616%7Cc97978b1bd4c44b59bbb20215efdf611%7C1%7C0%7C638091731143530605%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=Kf5QTE%2FhW2MDZRn5dWgHBAp4S95oWbr%2FfMda8tgETtw%3D=0>
 | Associate: UTS Centre for Media 
Transition<https://can01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.uts.edu.au%2Fresearch-and-teaching%2Four-research%2Fcentre-media-transition=05%7C01%7Cherve_saint-louis%40uqac.ca%7Cd75bd2cfb53340aa33ea08daf50c7616%7Cc97978b1bd4c44b59bbb20215efdf611%7C1%7C0%7C638091731143530605%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=T9an9tKAeNnj1vsavLDDIYKs6DarTp6IOoVQla768KY%3D=0>
 | Acting Co-Director: UTS Centre for Research on Education in a Digital 
Society<https://can01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.uts.edu.au%2Fresearch-and-teaching%2Four-research%2Fcentre-research-education-digital-society=05%7C01%7Cherve_saint-louis%40uqac.ca%7Cd75bd2cfb53340aa33ea08daf50c7616%7Cc97978b1bd4c44b59bbb20215efdf611%7C1%7C0%7C638091731143530605%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=pU%2BfGe%2Bqqtdm1H8VWQ0x0cNYFwZ6Iy4V%2B%2F6UGFFOzDI%3D=0>
w: 
hblog.org<https://can01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fhblog.org%2F=05%7C01%7Cherve_saint-louis%40uqac.ca%7Cd75bd2cfb53340aa33ea08daf50c7616%7Cc97978b1bd4c44b59bbb20215efdf611%7C1%7C0%7C638091731143530605%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=LaEBm4cKIY5IaKHIbYzznssTpFlJHCAGks6yFCbeP2E%3D=0>
 / t: 
@hfordsa<https://can01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.twitter.com%2Fhfordsa=05%7C01%7Cherve_saint-louis%40uqac.ca%7Cd75bd2cfb53340aa33ea08daf50c7616%7Cc97978b1bd4c44b59bbb20215efdf611%7C1%7C0%7C638091731143530605%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=4eOUFANhnT8tF2SEBOuep3vxRzsyDV5teT86bGqBlQI%3D=0>
 / pronouns: she/her

Latest journal article: Heather Ford and Michael Richardson. "Framing data 
witnessing: Airwars and the production of authority in conflict 
monitoring.<https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/01634437221147631>" 
Media, Culture & Society (2023): 01634437221147631.
Latest book: “Writing the Revolution: Wikipedia and the Survival of Facts in 
the Digital 
Age<https://can01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https

[Wiki-research-l] CFP: wikihistories 2023: Wikipedia and its implications for memory (and forgetting)

[Heather Ford]

https://wikihistories.net/2023-conference/
wikihistories 2023: Wikipedia and its implications for memory (and forgetting)
Call for papers

From its earliest beginnings shortly before 
911,[1]<https://wikihistories.net/2023-conference/#ftnt1> Wikipedia has 
documented history as it happens. 
Revolutions,[2]<https://wikihistories.net/2023-conference/#ftnt2> terrorist 
attacks,[3]<https://wikihistories.net/2023-conference/#ftnt3> 
earthquakes,[4]<https://wikihistories.net/2023-conference/#ftnt4> fires and 
floods have been written about on the platform, often within minutes of the 
first recorded protests, attacks, and blazes. This practice of documentation, 
conducted by volunteers who are connected by shared interest rather than shared 
expertise, falls between the disciplines of digital journalism and history. 
What does Wikipedia’s coverage of events “that haven’t even stopped happening 
yet”[5]<https://wikihistories.net/2023-conference/#ftnt5> mean for 
history-making on the platform? Researchers have noted that recent events are 
covered more than early 
history[6]<https://wikihistories.net/2023-conference/#ftnt6>, and stories are 
more often presented from colonialist rather than local 
perspectives.[7]<https://wikihistories.net/2023-conference/#ftnt7> More 
recently, Wikipedia has been uncovered as a site of both conscious forgetting 
and the “frenzy of 
commemorations,”[8]<https://wikihistories.net/2023-conference/#ftnt8> a venue 
for nationalist propaganda projecting particular stories that favour particular 
ideologies and social groups.

  *   How does Wikipedia construct history and collective memory?
  *   Does Wikipedia enable the forging of a collective memory via 
consensus?[9]<https://wikihistories.net/2023-conference/#ftnt9>
  *   How are some versions of the past pushed to the fringes?
  *   What gets remembered and what gets forgotten?
  *   How can we study history-making on the platform?

In this first annual workshop of the wikihistories project, we will take stock 
of what we know and what we still need to know about Wikipedia as a 
history-making platform. We do this because Wikipedia’s representation of 
history matters. Its facts travel through knowledge ecosystems and rest as 
answers to questions provided by digital assistants, search engines and other 
AI-enhanced tools. Wikipedia’s claims to neutrality are more a hope than a 
promise, a guise that hides the dreams and ideologies of the individuals and 
groups that understand its power and are determined to master its form.

We invite Wikipedia scholars and researchers to participate in a two-day 
symposium being held online on the 8th and 9th of June. The symposium will be 
held for about 4 hours at different times each day to accommodate a range of 
global timezones. Please send an abstract of 250-300 words to 
michael.f...@uts.edu.au<mailto:michael.f...@uts.edu.au> before March 17 (close 
of day anywhere in the world) responding to any of the above questions. We 
expect a mixture of both analytical and methodological contributions for the 
event which will be held annually for the 3 years of the wikihistories project.

Confirmed Speakers

This year’s symposium will begin with a keynote by Dr Simon 
Sleight<https://www.kcl.ac.uk/people/simon-sleight>, Reader in Urban History, 
Historical Youth Cultures and Australian History at King’s College, London. Dr 
Sleight is the co-editor of “History, Memory and Public Life: The Past in the 
Present” and will provide a rich background to our investigations of collective 
memory from the history discipline for an interdisciplinary audience.



[1]<https://wikihistories.net/2023-conference/#ftnt_ref1> Brian Keegan, “An 
Encyclopedia with Breaking News,” in Wikipedia@ 20: Stories of an Incomplete 
Revolution, ed. Joseph Reagle and Jackie Koerner (Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 
2019), 55–70, https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/12366.003.0007.

[2]<https://wikihistories.net/2023-conference/#ftnt_ref2> Heather Ford, Writing 
the Revolution: Wikipedia and the Survival of Facts in the Digital Age 
(Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 2022).

[3]<https://wikihistories.net/2023-conference/#ftnt_ref3> Bunty Avieson, 
“Breaking News on Wikipedia: Collaborating, Collating and Competing,” First 
Monday, April 30, 2019, https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v24i5.9530; Christian 
Pentzold, “Fixing the Floating Gap: The Online Encyclopaedia Wikipedia as a 
Global Memory Place,” Memory Studies 2, no. 2 (May 2009): 255–72, 
https://doi.org/10.1177/1750698008102055.

[4]<https://wikihistories.net/2023-conference/#ftnt_ref4> Brian Keegan, Darren 
Gergle, and Noshir Contractor, “Hot off the Wiki: Dynamics, Practices, and 
Structures in Wikipedia’s Coverage of the Tōhoku Catastrophes,” in Proceedings 
of the 7th International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration (WikiSym 
’11: The 7th Int

[Wiki-research-l] Post-doc

[Heather Ford]

Dear friends,

My colleague and I are looking to hire 0.5 FTE, 3 year post-doc for our ARC
Discovery Project re. Wikipedia in Australia called "Wikipedia and the
nation's story: Towards equity in knowledge production" (which is also
about platform bias, representation, digital inequality, knowledge
democracy, data feminism & others). Ping me if interested! Unfortunately
limited to those with Australian work rights.

I'd be grateful if you could share with your networks.

All best,
Heather.

-------

Dr Heather Ford
Associate Professor and Head of Discipline (Digital and Social Media
<https://www.uts.edu.au/future-students/communication/digital-and-social-media>
)
School of Communication
<https://www.uts.edu.au/future-students/communication/about-communication/welcome-school-communication>,
University of Technology, Sydney <https://www.uts.edu.au/> (UTS)

w: hblog.org / t: @hfordsa <http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa>
___
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: [event] Wiki Workshop 2022 - Registration open

[Heather Ford]

This is super helpful. Thank you for recording the sessions!

Best,
heather.

---

Dr Heather Ford
Associate Professor and Head of Discipline (Digital and Social Media
<https://www.uts.edu.au/future-students/communication/digital-and-social-media>
)
School of Communication
<https://www.uts.edu.au/future-students/communication/about-communication/welcome-school-communication>,
University of Technology, Sydney <https://www.uts.edu.au/> (UTS)

w: hblog.org / t: @hfordsa <http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa>



On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 at 10:32, Leila Zia  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> For those of you who could not attend Wiki Workshop virtually, you can now
> access:
>
> * the recorded sessions at https://wikiworkshop.org/2022/#schedule (The
> opening, paper presentations, panel, keynote, and the closing sessions were
> recorded.)
> * the accepted papers at https://wikiworkshop.org/2022/#papers .
>
> Best,
> Leila, on behalf of Wiki Workshop 2022 organizers
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 8:03 AM Leila Zia  wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > The registration for Wiki Workshop 2022 [1] is now open. The event is
> > virtually held on April 25, 12:00-18:30 UTC and as part of The Web
> > Conference 2022 [2]. The plenary parts of the event will be recorded
> > and shared publicly afterwards.
> >
> > Wiki Workshop is the largest Wikimedia research event of the year (so
> > far;) that the Research team at the Wikimedia Foundation co-organizes
> > with our Research Fellow, Bob West (EPFL). This year, Srijan Kumar
> > (Georgia Tech) joined the organizing team as well.:) The event brings
> > together scholars and researchers from across the world who are
> > interested in or are actively engaged with research and development on
> > the Wikimedia projects.
> >
> > While the details of the schedule are to be finalized and posted in
> > the coming week, we expect to generally follow the format of 2021 [3].
> > This year we received research submissions from more than 20 countries
> > and have accepted 27 research papers whose authors will present the
> > work as part of the workshop (If you are an author of an accepted
> > paper: congrats!:) . Our keynote speaker is Larry Lessig [4] and we
> > will have a panel to reflect on the decade anniversary of SOPA/PIPA,
> > moderated by Erik Moeller (Freedom of the Press). And of course, all
> > the music, games, etc. will remain. :)
> >
> > If you are interested in participating in the live event, please
> > indicate your interest by filling out [5]. Anyone is encouraged to
> > register: you don't have to be a researcher. In the registration form,
> > please explain why attending the live event will support you in your
> > work on the Wikimedia projects and beyond.
> >
> > If you have questions, please don't hesitate to reach out.
> >
> > Best,
> > Leila
> >
> > [1] https://wikiworkshop.org/2022/
> > [2] https://www2022.thewebconf.org/
> > [3] https://wikiworkshop.org/2021/#schedule
> > [4] https://hls.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/10519/Lessig
> > [5] (privacy statement for the Google form survey [6])
> >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSctlkUv8FasB2Nc4RvThnxAbjPzUwmnxB2FwnNkZlKG1NPOTg/viewform
> > [6]
> >
> https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal:Wiki_Workshop_Registration_Privacy_Statement
> >
> > --
> > Leila Zia
> > Head of Research
> > 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
>
___
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] Social Media + Society Special Issue: Semantic Media

[Heather Ford]

Hi all,

Really exciting new special issue on semantic media that may be of interest
to Wikipedia/Wikidata researchers. See below and let me know if you have
any questions! Abstract deadline is July 15.

All best,

Heather (and Andrew)

*---*

*Dr Heather Ford*
Associate Professor and Head of Discipline, Digital and Social Media
<https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/FQHeCWLV8zfVZBE1c6Xxp0?domain=uts.edu.au>

School of Communication
<https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/LanMCXLWMAfWjYQlUVwgoH?domain=uts.edu.au>
, University of Technology, Sydney
<https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/TW2LCYW8MBSwmx7KS9GWuj?domain=uts.edu.au/>
 (UTS)
Affiliate: UTS Data Science Institute
<https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/IVXUCZY1WDc0AN61hyw6D9?domain=uts.edu.au>
 | Associate: UTS Centre for Media Transition
<https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/rkiJC1WL9zSlxY4rHYfasg?domain=uts.edu.au>
 | Associate Member: UTS Centre for Research on Education in a Digital
Society
<https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/DnQsC2xM9AUgWwYLUMyBYW?domain=uts.edu.au>

w: hblog.org
<https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/BxKxC3QN90SOoQkjSYqg7J?domain=hblog.org/>
 / t: @hfordsa
<https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/U-uPC4QO9DSqE1VZUNo71T?domain=twitter.com> /
pronouns: she/her



*University of Technology Sydney*

Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
PO Box 123. Broadway NSW 2007 Australia



I acknowledge the Gadigal People of the Eora Nation and the Boorooberongal
People of the Dharug Nation upon whose ancestral lands our campuses now
stand. I pay respect to Elders past, present and emerging, acknowledging
them as the traditional custodians of knowledge for these lands.



*Call for Papers*



*Social Media + Society** Special Issue: Semantic Media*



*Editors: Andrew Iliadis and Heather Ford*



This special issue focuses on “semantic media,” which we define as media
technologies that primarily orchestrate and convey facts, answers,
meanings, and “knowledge” about things directly in media products, rather
than lead people to other sources. Search engines and virtual assistants
respond directly to questions based on textual or verbal searches (e.g.,
“Things to do in Philadelphia?” or “What is the capital of Israel?”). The
special issue is thus dedicated to the often-invisible ways (to the
non-specialist) that internet companies are now actively involved in
constructing “knowledge” about the world. Organizations like Apple, Google,
Microsoft, Facebook, and Amazon extract, curate, and store facts served to
users in new and emerging media products. Such processes have significant
implications for the politics of knowledge sharing in the future.



We seek papers that examine how design decisions “bake” these facts into
the apps and platforms people use daily while focusing on the
infrastructures dedicated to orchestrating and presenting this information.
The goal is to understand the technologies that will drive social and
political outcomes when large internet companies become a primary conduit
through which people directly acquire an understanding of facts about the
world. We also seek to understand how governments, nonprofit, and
nongovernmental organizations engage these media technologies. Semantic
media are less about searching for keywords and matches on different
websites that are then ranked for people to choose. Instead, they deal with
identifying and describing entities (things like people, products, and
places) and directing interactions with those entities (actions like
purchasing, scheduling, and contacting). How do semantic media identify
concepts and connect related information about them? How do companies and
organizations produce facts and organize the data? From where does the data
originate? What do these semantic processes mean for web users and
administrators? What types of gatekeeping or safety checks do companies and
organizations perform concerning these facts?



Today’s semantic media have a long history reaching back to the “Semantic
Web” project initiated by web inventor Tim Berners-Lee. Yet, media
researchers do not adequately cover how companies and organizations
implement semantic technologies on platforms relative to their central
role. These semantic technologies are in proprietary and open source
products, and extensive media platforms are now using them to provide facts
and represent knowledge to various publics. Google’s Knowledge Graph is a
database of facts that Google uses to provide quick answers to the public,
and such graphs are in use at other companies. At the same time, Wikipedia
has a product called Wikidata that similarly stores facts about the world
in data formats through which various apps can retrieve the data.
Researchers and journalists also use semantic technologies for search
engine optimization, fact-checking practices, and data sharing and
organization. This special issue thus focuses on such platformized versions
of fact production and ex

[Wiki-research-l] Pilot project on Wikimedia gaps: looking for a research assistant

[Heather Ford]

Hi all,


We are looking for someone with data visualisation experience to help us
with a new pilot research project investigating gaps in coverage of
Wikimedia in Australia (see ad below). We have received a small amount of
money by UTS to run this pilot while we wait on the results of a proposed
for a much larger project. The pilot will probably only be a few days work
but there may be more work down the line. We would love to hear from anyone
interested in working with us on this! Please email me if interested.


Best,

Heather.


*Data visualisations expert *

Heather Ford <http://hblog.org>, Head of Digital and Social Media at UTS
<https://www.uts.edu.au/future-students/communication/digital-and-social-media>
in Sydney and Tamson Pietsch, Head of the Centre for Public History at UTS
<https://www.uts.edu.au/research-and-teaching/our-research/australian-centre-public-history>along
with collaborators, Wikimedia Australia
<https://wikimedia.org.au/wiki/Wikimedia_Australia> (including Pru Mitchell
and [[User:99of9|Toby Hudson]]) are involved in a project to analyse
Wikipedia’s scope and progress over the past twenty years (relating to
Australia and possibly globally). We are looking for someone to help us to
develop a series of visualisations for a pilot project. This will involve
extracting data about en.wp.org
<https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/QNnXCJyBPjFg0KzMhv8Did?domain=protect-au.mimecast.com/>
articles
(either from Wikipedia or via Wikidata) and comparing it to another dataset
(possibly *https://honours.pmc.gov.au/honours/search
<https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/PMNTCGv097U2jAlXcQ_ELf?domain=honours.pmc.gov.au>)*,
cleaning and coding data and, importantly, visualising the data using
mapping and other visualisation tools. This is a pilot project with
resources for a few days work which we would ideally like to happen over
the next month. Experience with Wikimedia data analysis is a plus. Please
contact Heather for more information or to express interest.

-------

Dr Heather Ford
Associate Professor and Head of Discipline (Digital and Social Media
<https://www.uts.edu.au/future-students/communication/digital-and-social-media>
)
School of Communication
<https://www.uts.edu.au/future-students/communication/about-communication/welcome-school-communication>,
University of Technology, Sydney <https://www.uts.edu.au/> (UTS)

w: hblog.org / t: @hfordsa <http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa>
___
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

[Heather Ford]

This looks like a wonderful paper and excellent research. Thank you so much
for sharing, Nathalie! I look forward to reading!

Best,
Heather.

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 Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 09:52, Nathalie Casemajor 
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> For those of you who are interested in "small" Wikipedias and Indigenous
> languages, here's a new academic paper co-signed by yours truly.
>
> Published in an open access journal :)
>
> Nathalie Casemajor (Seeris)
>
> -
>
> *Openness, Inclusion and Self-Affirmation: Indigenous knowledge in Open
> Knowledge Projects
> <
> http://peerproduction.net/editsuite/issues/issue-13-open/peer-reviewed-papers/openness-inclusion-and-self-affirmation/?fbclid=IwAR3YQA3eXXZ7Z3ou6lz38_zxXsU_XZ0fu8AJVHE5EVGDil0SBa2U2q0gCKc
> >*
>
> This paper is based on an action research project (Greenwood and Levin,
> 1998) conducted in 2016-2017 in partnership with the Atikamekw Nehirowisiw
> Nation and Wikimedia Canada. Built into the educational curriculum of a
> secondary school on the Manawan reserve, the project led to the launch of a
> Wikipedia encyclopaedia in the Atikamekw Nehirowisiw language. We discuss
> the results of the project by examining the challenges and opportunities
> raised in the collaborative process of creating Wikimedia content in the
> Atikamekw Nehirowisiw language. What are the conditions of inclusion of
> Indigenous and traditional knowledge in open projects? What are the
> cultural and political dimensions of empowerment in this relationship
> between openness and inclusion? How do the processes of inclusion and
> negotiation of openness affect Indigenous skills and worlding processes?
> Drawing from media studies, indigenous studies and science and technology
> studies, we adopt an ecological perspective (Star, 2010) to analyse the
> complex relationships and interactions between knowledge practices,
> ecosystems and infrastructures. The material presented in this paper is the
> result of the group of participants’ collective reflection digested by one
> Atikamekw Nehirowisiw and two settlers. Each co-writer then brings his/her
> own expertise and speaks from what he or she knows and has been trained
> 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

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

[Heather Ford]

Oh goodness! Sounds like a wonderful opportunity, Dario, but oh how we will
miss you.

Congrats on the new role, Leila! You'll continue to do great things, I'm
sure.

All the best,
Heather.

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 Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 08:56, Dario Taraborelli 
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>
> ___
> 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] What percentage of digital assistants cite Wikipedia?

[Heather Ford]

I've been trying to find info related to this question (also specifically
related to usage of WikiData) but haven't been able to find anything. Was
just wondering whether there has been any new research in this area since
the question was posed last year?

Many thanks.

Best,
heather.

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 29 August 2017 at 19:27, Stella Yu | STELLARESULTS 
wrote:

> Hi Adam,
>
> Thank for sharing your experience. I'm very curious to see what ideas come
> up to study this.
>
> Warmly,
> Stella
> Stella Yu | STELLARESULTS
> +1 650 281 6557 Mobile
> Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Adam Baso 
> Sender: "Wiki-research-l" Date:
> Tue, 29 Aug 2017 12:02:48
> To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities lists.wikimedia.org>
> Reply-To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
>  
> Cc: 
> Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] What percentage of digital assistants cite
> Wikipedia?
>
> Over the weekend, I tried a few voice queries with Cortana and noticed
> sometimes it sources things from Wikipedia in the Windows OS native
> component. And when I said "Wikipedia goldfish" it opened a browser to Bing
> with the search query.
>
> Ward, I agree that an academic group or perhaps the Foundation might be in
> a position to ask or ascertain some sort of information. That said, I
> believe the information is pretty carefully guarded. I've in general wished
> to have a sense of aggregate changes (e.g., fluctuation of percentage of
> impressions involving Wikimedia content and the raw delta of
> Wikimedia-involved impressions) - for understanding impact, like you
> mention - even if the data had to be time delayed.
>
> Claudia, I was curious, would you explain a bit more on editors wanting to
> know? Is it about broad reach numbers as Ward mentioned, or something else?
>
> -Adam
>
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 2:12 AM,  wrote:
>
> > Ward, I think that quite a few editors would like to know,
> > indeed,
> >
> > best,
> > Claudia
> >
> > -- Original Message ---
> > From:Ward Cunningham 
> > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> > 
> > Cc:ste...@stellaresults.com
> > Sent:Sun, 13 Aug 2017 10:19:58 -0700
> > Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] What percentage of digital
> > assistants cite Wikipedia?
> >
> > > > On Aug 11, 2017, at 4:02 PM, Stella Yu
> >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Which of the digital assistants (Alexa, Siri, Google
> > Assistant,
> > > > Cortana) source/cite Wikipedia?
> > >
> > > I would assume that each of these device operators
> > > would have detailed analytics regarding the degree
> > > that they reuse Wikimedia content. Editors might
> > > be inspired to know the extension of reach thus
> > > provided. I wonder if the foundation, or some
> > > academic institution, might be a suitable
> > > intermediary to work with the operators to make
> > > this information generally available so as to
> > > encourage continued volunteer participation.
> > ___
> > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-
> > > research-l
> > --- End of Original Message ---
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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
>
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Gaps

[Heather Ford]

Dear Amir,

I did send this via Twitter, but wanted to send here too in case anyone
else is interested. Our paper summarises some of the research on
notifications. A pre-print is available here:

https://makebuildplay.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/wp_primary_school_paper_acceptedv.pdf


Happy to chat more and would very much like to chat to others doing
research on knowledge gaps on Wikipedia.

Best,
Heather.

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 9 February 2018 at 20:53, Amir E. Aharoni <amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il>
wrote:

> Heather,
>
> Thanks for starting this thread.
>
> Where can I read your research that comes to the conclusion that automated
> mechanisms are insufficient for solving the gaps problem?
>
> Sorry if this was mentioned somewhere already; I sometimes get lost on long
> emails, and it's possible that I missed it :)
>
>
> בתאריך 9 בפבר׳ 2018 05:04,‏ "Heather Ford" <hfor...@gmail.com> כתב:
>
> Having a look at the new WMF research site, I noticed that it seems that
> notification and recommendations mechanisms are the key strategy being
> focused on re. the filling of Wikipedia's content gaps. Having just
> finished a research project on just this problem and coming to the opposite
> conclusion i.e. that automated mechanisms were insufficient for solving the
> gaps problem, I was curious to find out more.
>
> This latest research that I was involved in with colleagues was based on an
> action research project aiming to fill gaps in topics relating to South
> Africa. The team tried a range of different strategies discussed in the
> literature for filling Wikipedia's gaps without any wild success. Automated
> mechanisms that featured missing and incomplete articles catalysed very few
> edits.
>
> When looking for related research, it seemed that others had come to a
> similar conclusion i.e. that automated notification/recommendations alone
> didn't lead to improvements in particular target areas. That makes me think
> that a) I just haven't come across the right research or b) that there are
> different types of gaps and that those different types require different
> solutions i.e. the difference between filling gaps across language
> versions, gaps created by incomplete articles about topics for which there
> are few online/reliable sources is different from the lack of articles
> about topics for which there are many online/reliable sources, gaps in
> articles about particular topics, relating to particular geographic areas
> etc.
>
> Does anyone have any insight here? - either on research that would help
> practitioners decide how to go about a project of filling gaps in a
> particular subject area or about whether the key focus of research at the
> WMF is on filling gaps via automated means such as recommendation and
> notification mechanisms?
>
> Many thanks!
>
> Best,
> Heather.
> ___
> 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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Gaps

[Heather Ford]

Thanks so much for the super helpful comments and suggestions, Leila,
Kerry! I so appreciate it.

And yes, this is a great way to frame the distinction i.e. that some gaps
can be filled by existing contributors (using automated techniques like
recommendations) but others can only be filled by bringing in new
contributors and/or by creating alternative support mechanisms or
incentives (in the way that programmes like GLAM or editing competitions
might do). Curious if anyone else on the list has recommendations for
research in the latter category... I'm still convinced we need more
academic research here :)

Best,
Heather.



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 9 February 2018 at 12:18, Leila Zia <le...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 8:56 PM, Kerry Raymond <kerry.raym...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I think we can't address content gaps unless we also address contributor
> gaps.
>
> This is very important. We very likely have reader/consumer gaps, (for
> sure) content gaps, and contributor gaps and these gaps are connected
> to each other in ways that we need to much better understand.
>
> Leila
>
> ___
> 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] Gaps

[Heather Ford]

Having a look at the new WMF research site, I noticed that it seems that
notification and recommendations mechanisms are the key strategy being
focused on re. the filling of Wikipedia's content gaps. Having just
finished a research project on just this problem and coming to the opposite
conclusion i.e. that automated mechanisms were insufficient for solving the
gaps problem, I was curious to find out more.

This latest research that I was involved in with colleagues was based on an
action research project aiming to fill gaps in topics relating to South
Africa. The team tried a range of different strategies discussed in the
literature for filling Wikipedia's gaps without any wild success. Automated
mechanisms that featured missing and incomplete articles catalysed very few
edits.

When looking for related research, it seemed that others had come to a
similar conclusion i.e. that automated notification/recommendations alone
didn't lead to improvements in particular target areas. That makes me think
that a) I just haven't come across the right research or b) that there are
different types of gaps and that those different types require different
solutions i.e. the difference between filling gaps across language
versions, gaps created by incomplete articles about topics for which there
are few online/reliable sources is different from the lack of articles
about topics for which there are many online/reliable sources, gaps in
articles about particular topics, relating to particular geographic areas
etc.

Does anyone have any insight here? - either on research that would help
practitioners decide how to go about a project of filling gaps in a
particular subject area or about whether the key focus of research at the
WMF is on filling gaps via automated means such as recommendation and
notification mechanisms?

Many thanks!

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

[Wiki-research-l] "Cultures of Fact Travel": 4S Sydney 2018 CFP

[Heather Ford]

I am helping to organise an Open Panel at 4S Sydney, August 29 - September
1 2018 (https://4s2018sydney.org/) around "Cultures of Fact Travel". Hoping
that there will be some Wikipedia/WikiData/citizen science scholars in
Sydney. If you're looking at production/evaluation/distribution of factual
knowledge in digitally-mediated environments, please apply! Abstracts
close: Feb 1st, 2018.

79. Cultures of fact travel

Organisers: Dr Heather Ford, University of New South Wales; Professor
Christopher W. Anderson (University of Leeds), Dr Lucas Graves (University
of Oxford)

This panel invites research that addresses how facts and knowledge claims
are represented in online spaces, how they are evaluated and verified, the
ways in which they face opposition or reach consensus, and/or how they
travel through the infrastructures of the Internet. A large variety of
sites and practices have emerged to host and distribute facts in online
environments. New facts are born digital in the form of databases, data
visualisations, online dictionaries and encyclopaedic entries while facts
that existed before the Internet are digitised and encoded using the rules
and grammar of software. In this environment, facts are produced and
represented using software for visualising data and exporting
visualisations into Web-friendly formats, where facts are verified on fact
checking platforms and where facts are distributed and shared using
software such as the ‘share this’ button at the end of a newspaper article,
a ‘cite this’ button on a scientific journal article, or a retweet function
on Twitter. In order for a fact to travel, it needs to move from beyond its
origins in the lab, the institution, company, field, or community to new
audiences. Sometimes this translation happens between institutions,
sometimes it happens between fields, or between countries, continents or
languages. This panel will host different approaches to the production,
evaluation, and distribution of facts in digitally-mediated environments.

Open panel paper submissions should be in the form of abstracts of up to
250 words. They should include the paper’s main arguments, methods, and
contributions to STS.

When submitting papers to open panels on the abstract submission platform,
you will select the Open Panel you are submitting to. Papers submitted to
an open session will be reviewed by the open session organizers and will be
given first consideration for that session. Papers not included in the
session to which they were submitted will be considered for other sessions.
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] feedback appreciated

[Heather Ford]

This is excellent, Caroline. What a powerful piece.

You may want to read Angele Christin's paper that just came out in Big Data
and Society that complicates the notion of judges accepting algorithmic
reasoning wholesale in making decisions.

http://journals.sagepub.com/eprint/SPgDYyisV8mAJn4fm7Xi/full

Best,
Heather.

Dr Heather Ford
University Academic Fellow
School of Media and Communications <http://media.leeds.ac.uk/>, The
University of Leeds
w: hblog.org / EthnographyMatters.net <http://ethnographymatters.net/> / t:
@hfordsa <http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa>


On 26 August 2017 at 02:50, Caroline Sinders <csind...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> hi all,
> i just started a column with fast co and wrote an article about elon musk's
> AI panic.
>
> https://www.fastcodesign.com/90137818/dear-elon-forget-
> killer-robots-heres-what-you-should-really-worry-about
>
> would love some feedback :)
>
> best,
> caroline
> ___
> 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] new viz. WiViVi = Wikipedia Views Visualized

[Heather Ford]

This is great, Erik! Nice work :)

Dr Heather Ford
University Academic Fellow
School of Media and Communications <http://media.leeds.ac.uk/>, The
University of Leeds
w: hblog.org / EthnographyMatters.net <http://ethnographymatters.net/> / t:
@hfordsa <http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa>


On 3 August 2017 at 00:27, Erik Zachte <ezac...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
>
>
> A new visualization has just been published: WiViVi = Wikipedia Views
> Visualized
>
>
>
> https://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/animations/pageviews/wivivi.html
>
> documented at
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WiViVi
>
>
>
> Please let me know if you have any feedback  or questions.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Erik Zachte
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Models for developing underserved topics on Wikipedia

[Heather Ford]

Thanks so much, yes! I did find this in my initial search and it has been
super useful. Also, thanks, Aaron for the other wikiedu link.

Best,
Heather.

Dr Heather Ford
University Academic Fellow
School of Media and Communications <http://media.leeds.ac.uk/>, The
University of Leeds
w: hblog.org / EthnographyMatters.net <http://ethnographymatters.net/> / t:
@hfordsa <http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa>


On 5 May 2017 at 16:49, Morten Wang <nett...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I was going to chime in here and mention our 2015 CSCW paper, but Aaron
> beat me to it, thanks Aaron! :)
>
> There are several related papers in our lit. review, such as the work
> studying the Public Policy Initiative (Lampe et al), projects related to
> the Wikipedia Education Program/APS Initiative (Farzan et al), and
> WikiProjects' Collaboration of the Week (Zhu et al). We also add the
> WikiCup in our study.
>
> Not sure what other papers to recommend in this space at the moment, good
> luck!
>
>
> Cheers,
> Morten
>
>
>
> On 5 May 2017 at 08:24, Aaron Halfaker <aaron.halfa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Relevant to Gabriel's comment: https://wikiedu.org/blog/2016/
> > 08/31/academic-content/
> >
> > Kevin is around this mailing list sometimes.  Maybe he can give us an
> > update.  :)
> >
> > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Gabriel Mugar <gmu...@syr.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Heather,
> > > I imagine the Wiki Education Foundation has data on the impact of their
> > > work on article quality. The pilot project for the foundation in 2010
> was
> > > aimed at improving public policy articles.
> > > I hope this helps.
> > > Gabe
> > >
> > > > On May 5, 2017, at 4:46 AM, Heather Ford <hfor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thank you so much for your replies! I'm mostly interested in research
> > > that
> > > > has been done to study the value/impact of different types of
> > > > interventions. But this is all useful, thank you!
> > > >
> > > > On 5 May 2017 07:07, "Gerard Meijssen" <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hoi,
> > > >> The study by Aaron is about English Wikipedia and concentrates on
> > female
> > > >> scientists. Great study but when you want to know about the coverage
> > of
> > > >> English Wikipedia compared to missing knowledge, there are other
> more
> > > >> relevant approaches. I blogged about one [1]. There are many
> > categories
> > > >> with a definition for its content where English is missing a
> > substantial
> > > >> number of articles. I blogged about that as well [2].
> > > >>
> > > >> As your need content relating to South Africa, in Wikidata we
> included
> > > all
> > > >> the current parliamentarians of South Africa. Most do/did not have
> an
> > > >> article. There are many places in SA that do not have an article and
> > > >> neither does their Mayor. In the Black Lunch Table project artists
> > from
> > > the
> > > >> African Diaspora are documented and when they emigrate they are in
> > > focus.
> > > >> It follows that South African artists can do with some loving tender
> > > care.
> > > >> It is easy to come up with relevant subjects that are missing.
> > > >>
> > > >> My advise to you is: consider the subject in your curriculum. Google
> > for
> > > >> South African subjects relating to what is on topic and write,
> expand
> > > >> curate as is needed. Talk in the classroom about how Wikipedia is
> > > failing
> > > >> South Africa and discuss what can be done and how you make the
> biggest
> > > >> impact.. IMHO it starts with well connected stubs.
> > > >>
> > > >> Do yourself a favour get some friendly admins onboard and protect
> > > yourself
> > > >> against deletionists. For them South Africa is not what they know so
> > how
> > > >> can it be notable?
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >> GerardM
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> [1]
> > > >> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2017/04/wikidata-
> > > >> user-stories-sum-of-all.html
> > > >> [2]
> > > >> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2017/04/wikipedia-
> > > >> rese

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Models for developing underserved topics on Wikipedia

[Heather Ford]

Thank you so much for your replies! I'm mostly interested in research that
has been done to study the value/impact of different types of
interventions. But this is all useful, thank you!

On 5 May 2017 07:07, "Gerard Meijssen" <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hoi,
> The study by Aaron is about English Wikipedia and concentrates on female
> scientists. Great study but when you want to know about the coverage of
> English Wikipedia compared to missing knowledge, there are other more
> relevant approaches. I blogged about one [1]. There are many categories
> with a definition for its content where English is missing a substantial
> number of articles. I blogged about that as well [2].
>
> As your need content relating to South Africa, in Wikidata we included all
> the current parliamentarians of South Africa. Most do/did not have an
> article. There are many places in SA that do not have an article and
> neither does their Mayor. In the Black Lunch Table project artists from the
> African Diaspora are documented and when they emigrate they are in focus.
> It follows that South African artists can do with some loving tender care.
> It is easy to come up with relevant subjects that are missing.
>
> My advise to you is: consider the subject in your curriculum. Google for
> South African subjects relating to what is on topic and write, expand
> curate as is needed. Talk in the classroom about how Wikipedia is failing
> South Africa and discuss what can be done and how you make the biggest
> impact.. IMHO it starts with well connected stubs.
>
> Do yourself a favour get some friendly admins onboard and protect yourself
> against deletionists. For them South Africa is not what they know so how
> can it be notable?
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
>
> [1]
> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2017/04/wikidata-
> user-stories-sum-of-all.html
> [2]
> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2017/04/wikipedia-
> research-world-famous-in.html
>
> On 4 May 2017 at 23:37, Aaron Halfaker <aaron.halfa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Heather!
> >
> > I've been working on methods for measuring content gaps and showing when
> > they appeared and were closed.
> >
> > See https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/03/07/the-keilana-effect/ for a
> > summary
> > and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Interpolating_quality_
> > dynamics_in_Wikipedia_and_demonstrating_the_Keilana_Effect for a
> long-form
> > discussion of the methods.
> >
> > I've got a complete dataset of per-article quality assessments for all
> > articles in English Wikipedia
> >
> > Halfaker, Aaron; Sarabadani, Amir (2016): Monthly Wikipedia article
> quality
> > predictions. figshare. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.3859800.v3
> >
> > I'm working hard to get that dataset hosted on Quarry so that it would be
> > easier experiment with for arbitrary new cross-sections by anyone who is
> > interested.  But we've hit some technical hurdles.  See
> > https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T146718
> >
> > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:29 PM, Andrew Krizhanovsky <
> > andrew.krizhanov...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Great project! Thank you for information.
> > >
> > > There is the discussion about the multilingual project name at page
> > 33-34.
> > > I like the name Wikischool :)
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Andrew Krizhanovsky.
> > >
> > > On 4 May 2017 at 18:45, Ziko van Dijk <zvand...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > Does it have to be Wikipedia? Wikipedia is a reference work for
> > > > "everybody", but not especially written for pupils in the primary
> > > education.
> > > >
> > > > We discussed this kind of issues at the foundation of the Klexikon,
> see
> > > our
> > > > report in English:
> > > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:English_version_
> > > Konzept_Wikipedia_f%C3%BCr_Kinder.pdf
> > > >
> > > > Kind regards,
> > > > Ziko
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2017-05-04 14:44 GMT+02:00 Heather Ford <hfor...@gmail.com>:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi all,
> > > >>
> > > >> I've started working on a paper with folks who ran a fascinating
> > project
> > > >> called "Wikipedia Primary School" [1] where they investigated
> > different
> > > >> mechanisms or models for eliciting and developing Wikipedia content
> > that
> > > >&g

[Wiki-research-l] Models for developing underserved topics on Wikipedia

[Heather Ford]

Hi all,

I've started working on a paper with folks who ran a fascinating project
called "Wikipedia Primary School" [1] where they investigated different
mechanisms or models for eliciting and developing Wikipedia content that
was relevant to the South African national primary school curriculum. We
are currently writing a paper that assesses each of the different types of
"interventions" that were tested/tried out in trying to fill in these gaps
- including editathons, contests and collaborations with scientific
journals. It seems as though there are a host of different types of models
that are used to fill in Wikipedia's gaps beyond the original "volunteer
edits what interests them in their spare time" model (e.g. Wikipedians in
residence, editing Wikipedia as part of class assignments). If anyone has
any good references to work already undertaken in this area please let me
know!

Many thanks,
Heather.

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Primary_School

Dr Heather Ford
University Academic Fellow
School of Media and Communications <http://media.leeds.ac.uk/>, The
University of Leeds
w: hblog.org / EthnographyMatters.net <http://ethnographymatters.net/> / t:
@hfordsa <http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa>
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] citing female academics

[Heather Ford]

Thanks for your thoughtful comments here. What I was meant but probably didn't 
clearly state was that it might be useful for us to reflect as wiki researchers 
on the extent to which we cite the work of female academics. We are quite good 
at criticising others, I find, but less on reflecting on our own practice. No 
need to comment publicly - just some food for thought perhaps :)

Best,
Heather.

Sent from my iPhone

> On 29 Feb 2016, at 01:41, Sam Katz  wrote:
> 
> Let me comment on the original question. The correct citation is typically 
> the oldest one known to the researcher, not the most popular.
> 
>> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Gerard Meijssen  
>> wrote:
>> Hoi,
>> I am truly happy that Wikidata is its own master. When a Wikipedia has 
>> certain policies it is welcome to it. As long as they do not use Wikidata to 
>> improve the quality of its content [1] and by the same token improve the 
>> data at Wikidata, I am not interested what a Wikipedia does.
>> Thanks,
>>   GerardM
>> 
>> [1] 
>> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2016/01/wikipedia-lowest-hanging-fruit-from.html
>> 
>>> On 28 February 2016 at 20:31, Stuart A. Yeates  wrote:
>>> Wikidata appears to allow original research and the inference of gender 
>>> from the name or photo of the subject. It will be a cold day in hell before 
>>> en.wiki allows this, see [[WP:RS]] and .[[WP:OR]].
>>> 
>>> cheers
>>> stuart
>>> --
>>> ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
>>> 
 On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Jane Darnell  wrote:
 But there have also been lots of corrections. As far as painters go, the 
 data is really pretty decent now. It helps that it's really easy to check 
 the state of Wikidata against the contents of Wikipedia categories. As 
 more people become aware of how to make such checks, I think we start to 
 see a cleanup of categories and (I hope) a better categorization system 
 starting to form that is more  in line with Wikidata property class trees.
 
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Stuart A. Yeates  
> wrote:
> Data has been sucked from GND to wikidata via a number of routes, 
> principally VIAF. See 
> Wikidata:Bot_requests#Import_GND_identifiers_from_VIAF_dump for example 
> for a discussion of an instance of this.
> 
> cheers
> stuart
> 
> --
> ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
> 
>> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Gerard Meijssen 
>>  wrote:
>> Hoi,
>> The blog states that a lot of data was sucked into Wikidata from GND. As 
>> far as I am aware that never happened. So its assertion is wrong.
>> Thanks,
>>   GerardM
>> 
>>> On 28 February 2016 at 19:43, Stuart A. Yeates  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
>>> 
 On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Gerard Meijssen 
  wrote:
 Hoi,
 It is trivial when you only consider Wikidata.
>>> 
>>> I've previous blogged about the issues with sex / gender in wikidata at 
>>> http://opensourceexile.blogspot.co.nz/2014/07/adrian-pohl-wrote-some-excellent.html
>>>  has the sitaution moved on?
>>> 
>>> cheers
>>> stuart
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> 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
 
 
 ___
 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
> 
> ___
> 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

[Wiki-research-l] citing female academics

[Heather Ford]

There's an interesting discussion going on right now on the Association of
Internet Researchers mailing list about the citing of women (and women of
colour) in academia that I thought might be interesting. The comments are
also really (as Gabriella Coleman noted) 'lively' so they're worth a read
too. I'd be curious to learn more about how we as a Wikipedia research
community fare here too...

https://merylalper.com/2016/02/22/please-read-the-article-please-cite-women-academics/

Best,
Heather.

Dr Heather Ford
University Academic Fellow
School of Media and Communications <http://media.leeds.ac.uk/>, The
University of Leeds
w: hblog.org / EthnographyMatters.net <http://ethnographymatters.net/> / t:
@hfordsa <http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa>
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Pageview API

[Heather Ford]

This is awesome. Thank you!

Dr Heather Ford
University Academic Fellow
School of Media and Communications <http://media.leeds.ac.uk/>, The
University of Leeds
w: hblog.org / EthnographyMatters.net <http://ethnographymatters.net/> / t:
@hfordsa <http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa>


On 18 November 2015 at 16:02, Dario Taraborelli <dtarabore...@wikimedia.org>
wrote:

> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Dan Andreescu <dandree...@wikimedia.org>
> To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities <
> wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Cc:
> Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 08:43:10 -0500
> Subject: Pageview API
>
> Dear Data Enthusiasts,
>
> In collaboration with the Services team, the analytics team wishes to
> announce a public Pageview API
> <https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/?doc#!/Pageviews_data/get_metrics_pageviews_per_article_project_access_agent_article_granularity_start_end>.
> For an example of what kind of UIs someone could build with it, check out
> this excellent demo <http://analytics.wmflabs.org/demo/pageview-api>
> (code)
> <https://gist.github.com/marcelrf/49738d14116fd547fe6d#file-article-comparison-html>
> .
>
> The API can tell you how many times a wiki article or project is viewed
> over a certain period.  You can break that down by views from web crawlers
> or humans, and by desktop, mobile site, or mobile app.  And you can find
> the 1000 most viewed articles
> <https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/metrics/pageviews/top/es.wikipedia/all-access/2015/11/11>
> on any project, on any given day or month that we have data for.  We
> currently have data back through October and we will be able to go back to
> May 2015 when the loading jobs are all done.  For more information, take a
> look at the user docs
> <https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Analytics/AQS/Pageview_API>.
>
> After many requests from the community, we were really happy to finally
> make this our top priority and get it done.  Huge thanks to Gabriel, Marko,
> Petr, and Eric from Services, Alexandros and all of Ops really, Henrik for
> maintaining stats.grok, and, of course, the many community members who have
> been so patient with us all this time.
>
> The Research team’s Article Recommender tool
> <http://recommend.wmflabs.org/> already uses the API to rank pages and
> determine relative importance.  Wiki Education Foundation’s dashboard
> <https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/> is going to be using it to count how
> many times an article has been viewed since a student edited it.  And there
> are other grand plans for this data like “article finder”, which will find
> low-rated articles with a lot of pageviews; this can be used by editors
> looking for high-impact work.  Join the fun, we’re happy to help get you
> started and listen to your ideas.  Also, if you find bugs or want to
> suggest improvements, please create a task in Phabricator and tag it with
> #Analytics-Backlog
> <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/analytics-backlog/>.
>
> So what’s next?  We can think of too many directions to go into, for
> pageview data and Wikimedia project data, in general.  We need to work with
> you to make a great plan for the next few quarters.  Please chime in here
> <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T112956> with your needs.
>
> Team Analytics
>
> (p.s. this was also posted on analytics-l, wikitech-l, and engineering-l,
> but I suck and forgot to cc the research list. My apologies.)
>
>
>
>
> *Dario Taraborelli  *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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] April 2015 research showcase: remix and reuse in collaborative communities; the oral citations debate

[Heather Ford]

That was fun :) Thanks so much for organising, Aaron, Dario, Leila.

I totally recommend participating in the showcase for those who haven't
done it yet.

Best,
Heather.



Heather Ford
Oxford Internet Institute http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk Doctoral Programme
http://hblog.org | @hfordsa http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa



On 30 April 2015 at 19:18, Leila Zia le...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 A reminder that this event will start in 10 minutes. You can watch the
 event on YouTube here http://youtu.be/upQXecRNcdw. As usual, we will be
 in #wikimedia-research for questions and chat. :-)

 On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Dario Taraborelli 
 dtarabore...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 I am thrilled to announce our speaker lineup for this month’s research
 showcase
 https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Analytics/Research_and_Data/Showcase#April_2015.


 *Jeff Nickerson* (Stevens Institute of Technology) will talk about remix
 and reuse in collaborative communities; *Heather Ford* (Oxford Internet
 Institute) will present an overview of the oral citations debate in the
 English Wikipedia.

 The showcase will be recorded and publicly streamed at 11.30 PT on *Thursday,
 April 30 *(livestream link will follow). We’ll hold a discussion and
 take questions from remote attendees via the Wikimedia Research IRC channel
 (#wikimedia-research
 http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=wikimedia-research on freenode)
 as usual.

 Looking forward to seeing you there.

 Dario


 *Creating, remixing, and planning in open online communities**Jeff
 Nickerson*Paradoxically, users in remixing communities don’t remix very
 much. But an analysis of one remix community, Thingiverse, shows that those
 who actively remix end up producing work that is in turn more likely to
 remixed. What does this suggest about Wikipedia editing? Wikipedia allows
 more types of contribution, because creating and editing pages are done in
 a planning context: plans are discussed on particular loci, including
 project talk pages. Plans on project talk pages lead to both creation and
 editing; some editors specialize in making article changes and others, who
 tend to have more experience, focus on planning rather than acting.
 Contributions can happen at the level of the article and also at a series
 of meta levels. Some patterns of behavior – with respect to creating versus
 editing and acting versus planning – are likely to lead to more sustained
 engagement and to higher quality work. Experiments are proposed to test
 these conjectures.*Authority, power and culture on Wikipedia: The oral
 citations debate**Heather Ford*In 2011, Wikimedia Foundation Advisory
 Board member, Achal Prabhala was funded by the WMF to run a project called
 'People are knowledge' or the Oral citations project
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Oral_Citations. The goal of
 the project was to respond to the dearth of published material about topics
 of relevance to communities in the developing world and, although the
 majority of articles in languages other than English remain intact, the
 English editions of these articles have had their oral citations removed. I
 ask why this happened, what the policy implications are for oral citations
 generally, and what steps can be taken in the future to respond to the
 problem that this project (and more recent versions of it
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Indigenous_Knowledge) set out
 to solve. This talk comes out of an ethnographic project in which I have
 interviewed some of the actors involved in the original oral citations
 project, including the majority of editors of the surr
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/surr article that I trace in a chapter
 of my PhD[1] http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/?id=286.


 ___
 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

[Wiki-research-l] research on who creates new articles on English Wikipedia?

[Heather Ford]

Hi there,

I'm thinking there must be research about whether it is new or experienced
editors who are creating new articles on English Wikipedia but I can't seem
to find anything.

Anyone know of anything like this?

Many thanks!

Best,
Heather.

Heather Ford
Oxford Internet Institute http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/ Doctoral Programme
EthnographyMatters http://ethnographymatters.net/ | Oxford Digital
Ethnography Group http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=115
http://hblog.org | @hfordsa http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

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

[Heather Ford]

That is indeed really helpful, thanks for taking the time, Dario!

Heather Ford
Oxford Internet Institute http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk Doctoral Programme
EthnographyMatters http://ethnographymatters.net | Oxford Digital
Ethnography Group http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=115
http://hblog.org | @hfordsa http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa




On 29 July 2014 23:00, Dario Taraborelli dtarabore...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 Hi all,

 I am a bit late in the game, but since so many questions were raised about
 RCom, its scope, its goals, the source of its authority etc. and I helped
 coordinate it in the early days I thought I’d chime in to clear some
 confusion.

 *Is RCom an official WMF body or a group of volunteers?*

 RCom was created as a volunteer body to help design policies and best
 practices around research on Wikimedia projects. People who joined the
 committee did so on a volunteer basis and with a variety of interests by
 responding to a call for participation issued by WMF. Despite the fact that
 the original initiative came from WMF, its membership almost entirely
 consisted of non-WMF researchers and community members (those of us who are
 now with Wikimedia had no affiliation with the Foundation when RCom was
 launched [1]). RCom work was and remains 100% volunteer-driven, even for
 those of us who are full-time employees of the Foundation.

 *Is RCom a body regulating subject recruitment?*

 No, subject recruitment was only one among many areas of interest
 identified by its participants [2]

 *Is RCom still alive?*

 RCom stopped working a while ago* as a* *group meeting on a regular basis
 to discuss joint initiatives*. However, it spawned a large number of
 initiatives and workgroups that are still alive and kicking, some of which
 have evolved into other projects that are now only loosely associated with
 RCom. These include reviewing subject recruitment requests, but also the
 Research Newsletter, which has been published monthly for the last 3 years;
 countless initiatives in the area of open access; initiatives to facilitate
 Wikimedia data documentation and data discoverability; hackathons and
 outreach events aimed at bringing together researchers and Wikimedia
 contributors. Subject recruitment reviews and discussions are still
 happening, and I believe they provide a valuable service when you consider
 that they are entirely run by a microscopic number of volunteers. I don’t
 think that the alternative between “either RCom exists and it functions
 effectively or reviews should immediately stop” is well framed or even
 desirable, for the reasons that I explain below.

 *What’s the source of RCom’s authority in reviewing subject recruitment
 requests?*

 Despite the perception that one of RCom’s duties would be to provide
 formal approval for research projects, it was never designed to do so and
 it never had the power to enforce formal review decisions. Instead, it was
 offered as a volunteer support service in an effort to help minimize
 disruption, improve the relevance of research involving Wikimedia
 contributors, sanity check the credentials of the researchers, create
 collaborations between researchers working on the same topic. The lack of
 community or WMF policies to back subject recruitment caused in the past
 few years quite some headaches, particularly in those cases in which
 recruitment attempts were blocked and referred to the RCom in order to
 “obtain formal approval”. The review process itself was meant to be as
 inclusive as possible and not restricted to RCom participants and
 researchers having their proposal reviewed were explicitly invited to
 address any questions or concerns raised by community members on the talk
 page. I totally agree that the way in which the project templates and forms
 were designed needs some serious overhaul to remove any indication of a
 binding review process or a commitment for reviews to be delivered within a
 fixed time frame. I cannot think of any example in which the review process
 discriminated some type of projects (say qualitative research) in favor of
 other types of research, but I am sure different research proposals
 attracted different levels of participation and interest in the review
 process. My recommendation to anyone interested in designing future subject
 recruitment processes is to focus on a lightweight review process open to
 the largest possible number of community members but backed by transparent
 and *enforceable* policies. It’s a really hard problem and there is
 simply no obvious silver bullet solution that can be found without some
 experimentation and fault tolerance.

 *What about requests for **private data**?*

 Private data and technical support requests from WMF are a different
 story: they were folded into the list of frequently asked questions hosted
 on the RCom section of Meta, but by definition they require a direct and
 substantial involvement from the Foundation: (1) they involve WMF

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

[Heather Ford]

+1 on Piotr's comments.

And very, very happy to hear about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ethically_researching_Wikipedia --
I think this is definitely the way to go: developing guidelines that we
*regularly point people to* when they have questions etc. And maybe
something that we as a group can work on in the coming months.

I'll reiterate my suggestions for goals here and add some of Piotr's and
others' comments:

1. developing ethical research guidelines for Wikipedia research
- by building on the WP:Ethically_researching_Wikipedia page and regularly
pointing people to it

2. finding ways of making responsible requests to the WMF for data that
they hold that might benefit research outside the WMF
- through an official process with guidelines from the WMF on response
times/ viable requests etc.

3. developing opportunities for researchers to collaborate and share what
they're doing with the wider research community
- reorganising the research hub and pointing to best case practices etc
(similar to the WP Global Education program, as Piotr suggests)
- actively recruiting WP researchers to join this list and visit the
research hub
- some other regular way of involving researchers such as inviting them to
showcase their work and have it recognised on the list, on the hub etc
- recognising outstanding research (through a prize perhaps as Aaron
suggested)

Looking forward to hearing Phoebe's suggestions!

Best,
Heather.


Heather Ford
Oxford Internet Institute http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk Doctoral Programme
EthnographyMatters http://ethnographymatters.net | Oxford Digital
Ethnography Group http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=115
http://hblog.org | @hfordsa http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa




On 29 July 2014 09:04, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:

 The good and bad news is that the status quo with RCOM is likely to remain
 unless someone in WMF, the Board, or the community is interested enough in
 addressing the situation to put in some effort to make RCOM a functioning
 organization.

 At the moment I have the impression that WMF researchers are absorbing
 most of the work that RCOM and some dedicated RCOM admin support could do,
 like help with lit review and prevent outside researchers from using WMF
 databases in ways that compromise user privacy. My perception is that the
 current situation is inefficient for WMF and for outside researchers who
 want to do good work with WMF  or community resources, and also that RCOM
 lacks the resources to respond in timely ways to requests for help with
 outside research that could benefit Wikimedia. So, I there are reasons to
 changs the status quo, and I hope WMF or the Board would be interested in
 something like the proposal I made previously.

 Phoebe, what do you think?

 Pine

 ___
 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] discussion about wikipedia surveys

[Heather Ford]

 On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Aaron Halfaker aaron.halfa...@gmail.com
  wrote:

 RCOM is not functioning as a complete group anymore.


I'm a little confused why this wasn't made clear right at the beginning of
this thread e.g. when others suggested this might be the case and you
refuted them? Also, I'm not sure what 'functioning as a complete group'
actually means. Either its functioning or its not, surely?


 However, we split into sub-committees while we were still a functioning
 group.  The subject recruitment sub-committee and newsletter sub-committees
 are performing vital functions still.

 I never stated that research recruiting needs RCOM approval. I definitely
 said that it ought to have RCOM approval.


So, does that mean that is what the policy *ought to* be now? And do you
believe that this should this be the way that the policy gets decided?
Because it isn't right now as far as I can see. As Kerry noted earlier on,
the policy as it stands [1] says that researchers must obtain approval
through the process described. If the wording now needs to be changed to
ought to then surely this requires more consensus than your single
message here?

re. the comment that I (and the other researchers?) on this list shouldn't
be the ones to decide what the regulation should be, I disagree on two
counts. a) It seems on the one hand that you want this to be
self-regulation i.e. you invited researchers on this list to join R-COM
at the beginning of this thread, but that you don't think that the
researchers here should be able to determine what to regulate. I know that
you're looking for an inclusive process but you can't have it both ways: if
we are going to help regulate, then we need to at least help decide how to
regulate. b) Pine suggested a board decision on this earlier one to obtain
clarity and I supported this but it was met with silence, which is why I
followed up.


 There are also more than two review coordinators (not not reviewers)
 -- it's just that DarTar and I have accepted the burden of distributing
 work.  When people are busy, we often coordinate the reviews ourselves.


I can understand your frustration; I really can! I know that you've done a
lot of really great, prior work on this and I don't think any of us are
saying that we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. But what is
clear is that clarification is required - especially on the distribution of
tasks between Foundation employees, the research community and Wikimedia
editors. And this is *especially* true for people outside this list.


 I welcome your edits to make it clear that review is optional.  As you
 might imagine, I have plenty of work to do and I appreciate your good-faith
 collaboration on improving our research documentation.


I'm frustrated by this response. If the policy is incorrectly described on
the policy pages, then someone from RCom (or whatever it is now called)
should be the one to change this - preferably with some discussion. I find
it frustrating that WMF employees are often the ones who make the final
policy pronouncements but then tell others to implement it. And if we don't
do the work, then we're apparently not assuming good faith.

This is a great opportunity to rejuvenate the process; hopefully it will
eventually be seen that way :)

Best,
Heather.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Research_recruitment

-Aaron

 ___
 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] discussion about wikipedia surveys

[Heather Ford]

On 17 July 2014 17:55, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:


 Part of the problem is a somewhat subtle demographic one: while
 contributors to Wikipedia do turn over, so newer contributors will not
 necessarily have seen lots of surveys, very heavy editors and admins (who
 are often easier to identify) tend to be long-term participants who might
 have been surveyed many times. Additionally, the people who follow mailing
 lists, social media, etc. (or at least the people who speak up on those
 channels) skew towards very-long-term contributors who have strong opinions
 and have seen it all before. So, if you advertise your survey on the
 mailing list, that's the population you get, and that's the feedback you
 get. (But it's a catch-22; there's not really other obvious mass channels).


This is a really important insight, thanks for sharing it, Phoebe. It's
important to work out what the problem is that we're trying to solve before
we try solving it! If the key problem here is that Wikipedians need to be
protected from researchers constantly surveying them, and actually the
wide-ranging surveys are really rare these days, then maybe the problem is
with heavy editors and admins being constantly 'surveyed' (although I'm
guessing that this is not the only research method being used as I talk
about below).

Does anyone know whether this is actually a problem with editors these
days? I know that I have interviewed a bunch of editors over the years
without RCOM approval (some with RCOM approval) and I have only had good
experiences. Sure there were people who didn't want to be interviewed, but
they just ignored my requests - I'm not sure that they would say that they
were bothered enough that an entire process needed to be developed to
approve projects.

I think part of the problem here is that there is a bias towards particular
types of research projects in the way that RCOM was designed. I do both
quantitative and qualitative research on WP and the quantitative research
nowadays focuses mostly on capturing large-scale user actions using the API
or the dumps - I have a feeling that's why there are fewer surveys these
days - more researchers are using the data to conduct research and (right
now) that doesn't require any permissions beyond what is required by uni
ethics board (and all the problems that come with that!).

The projects I do as a qualitative researcher tend to be exploratory. I
will interview people on skype, for example, about their work on particular
articles before I know that I have a project. I could certainly develop a
proposal to RCOM but it would be so wide-ranging that I'm unsure what the
actual benefit was. I think that a much bigger problem is actually
developing community guidelines around ethical treatment of subjects who
don't often realise that their comments and interactions can be legally
(but, I believe not necessarily ethically) used without their permission (I
wrote something about my thoughts on this here [1]).

Basically, I think that we need to reassess what kinds of problems are the
most important ones right now that we want to solve rather than
resuscitating a process that was designed to address a specific type of
problem that was prevalent a long time ago. The new problems that I see
right now that a research community is best placed to solve are things like:

- developing community guidelines for the representation of editors'
identities in research (similar, perhaps to the AOIR guidelines [2]);
- finding ways of making responsible requests to the WMF for data that they
hold that might benefit research outside the WMF;
- developing opportunities for researchers to collaborate and share what
they're doing with the wider research community (as Kerry suggests).

[1]
http://ethnographymatters.net/blog/2013/06/27/onymous-pseudonymous-neither-or-both/

[2] http://aoir.org/reports/ethics2.pdf

Best,
Heather.




 Anyway, this is a hard problem without super-obvious solutions, and not
 one that there's a lot of models for -- very few online projects are
 simultaneously as open with their data and as interesting for research
 purposes!

 best,
 Phoebe


 --
 * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
 at gmail.com *

 ___
 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] Constructing sensible baselines for Wikipedia language development analytics

[Heather Ford]

This is such a great discussion. Thanks for starting it, Hang-teng :)

Laura, I just loved your analysis. Makes me realize that I spend way too
much time thinking about these things rather than practicing them which is
what you showed in your rapid analysis :)

One thing that I was really interested in was how you are thinking about
diversity of source languages. It's interesting because I tend to think
about this in exactly the opposite way! Basically, it seems that in your
analysis you're rewarding articles if they have a diversity of language
sources whereas I have always considered sources in terms of the
verifiability principle where the source should ideally be in the language
of the Wikipedia version so that users can verify whether the source is
being accurately reflected in the relevant article.

So I went to the 'verifiability' articles in a few different languages to
check whether there is consensus about this on Wikipedia, at least. The
english version [1] states that a) english language sources are preferred
because it's the English Wikipedia b) if another language source is used,
then editors may request a translation of relevant sections of the source,
and c) if other languages are used in quotations, then a translation must
be provided.

I looked at a few other language versions of the verifiability article (only
58 language versions have a version of this page) and few mention what to
do with other language sources. Afrikaans [2] seems to follow the
principles of the English version but Spanish and Catalan, for example,
don't mention other language versions of sources.

Anyway, I'd be really interested in what you think about this. Do you think
it's valuable to take Wikipedia's (or at least Wikipedia English's)
normative framework for evaluating citations or do you think there's value
in using another principle?

Thanks!

Best,
Heather.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
[2] https://af.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifieerbaarheid


Heather Ford
Oxford Internet Institute http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk Doctoral Programme
EthnographyMatters http://ethnographymatters.net | Oxford Digital
Ethnography Group http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=115
http://hblog.org | @hfordsa http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa




On 8 July 2014 11:13, Laura Hale la...@fanhistory.com wrote:

 I more or less tried to have a go at this on
 http://wikinewsreporter.wordpress.com/2014/06/30/determining-the-relative-quality-of-one-wikipedia-project-to-another-one-approach-with-english-spanish-catalan-galician-argonese-and-euskera-wikipedias/
 using both internal and external criteria for determining quality.
  (External being defined as what is considered good type of work on the
 topic using outside, non-Wikipedia specific definitions of quality.)

 Sincerely,
 Laura Hale


 On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Han-Teng Liao (OII) 
 han-teng.l...@oii.ox.ac.uk wrote:

 Thanks Jane for the comments and suggestions.

 Correct me if I misread your comments/suggestions, Jane.

 (1) Did you suggest measurements that are observable *inside*
 Wikipedia/Wikimedia websites?
 (2) If so, does it mean that your suggestion of measuring the current
 state of a language version as a combination of the state of its
 content and community describes only the *internal* state of that version?
 (3) When you said zero-state, did you mean the state where the number
 of articles in a given language version is zero?

 Your suggestions appear to me deal with a measurement of the current
 state of a language version. The use of zero-state suggests the equal
 grounds for any language version to develop on the Wikipedia platform.

 However, my call for help focuses on the current external state out there
 external to Wikipedia platform. In this context, the term *baseline*
 suggests some languages are already *more equal* than the others because of
 the availability of language users and content out there. Since Wikipedia
 depends on reliable published secondary sources, some languages are
 *expected* to be more developed than the others. What I want to do is to
 come up such *expectation values* so that researchers and community members
 can see which language versions perform better/worse than expected, in
 comparison to other languages.

 While I can agree that on the Wikipedia platform, any language may have
 equal groundings when they start from zero. It is my contestation that some
 languages are already *more equal* than the other.

 In other words, I want to construct sensible baselines *against which*
 the development of language versions can be better understood. Such
 baselines thus should capture external factors that are likely to condition
 the development. Normalization of development metrics using such baselines
 can then control these external factors to see which language versions
 underperform even when the external availability content and users is not
 an issue. It can also help to see which language

Re: [Wiki-research-l] this month's research newsletter

[Heather Ford]

I've been thinking about this and I want to make it clear what I'm
proposing:

* that we make a rule/standard/style that people writing substantive
reviews (i.e. reviews beyond short summaries where the opinion of the
review is clearly reflected) be accompanied by a byline underneath the
headline i.e.

'New study shows Wikipedia as powerful new gatekeeper
Heather Ford

A new study by Anna Awesomepants has found that'

The nature of the newsletter is such that the work is most often divided so
that individual authors write reviews of individual articles, but if there
are cases where more than one person has reviewed an article, then both
names can be added. I think the reviews need to be attributed with real
names, especially if people are critiquing the work of named individuals.

It has been suggested in the past that anyone who wants to add their name
to their review should just do so but that it doesn't have to be required.
This is problematic because there will still be unattributed reviews - and
often those reviews are the problematic ones. Another suggestion has been
that I oversee this process when the newsletter is developed. I don't mind
doing this once or twice but I want this to be a rule/standard/style agreed
to by this community so that Tilman, when he sets up the etherpad for the
month can simply write at the top of the pad:

'Please write your name next to your review.'

I'm not always going to be able to review for the newsletter. Tilman and
Dario coordinate this every month, but they need to be given a clear
mandate. I'd rather make this explicit. I know that we're often afraid of
rules in this community, but there are always rules - the difference is
whether they're hidden or explicit. At least with the explicit ones we know
how to oppose, comply with or add to them.

Then, a few responses to issues raised here:

Why looking at the edit history is not sufficient as attribution:

There are plenty of reasons why edit history does not serve as sufficient
attribution.

a) Many reviews are actually produced in the etherpad before Tilman ports
them over onto the wiki in which case the reviewer's name will not be
visible.

b) More importantly, there are good reasons why Wikipedia uses this method
for attributing authors of articles which are not relevant to the
newsletter. Not every product works like Wikipedia; nor should it.
Wikipedia attributes opinions to reliable sources whereas what we're doing
here is 'original research'. In Wikipedia, the source is always supposed to
be named. The words: 'it is disappointing that the researcher didn't
release their code' wouldn't legitimately appear in a Wikipedia article.
Instead, it would look something like this: 'According to Rev Researcher
cite, 'It is disappointing that...' Or even better, 'according to some
researchers cite researchers A, B, C...' but then the requirement is for
more than one individual with a reputation in their community of expertise
to be cited by name (not username or IP address but real name).

There are good reasons why we want to enable reviewers to assert their own
opinion (preferably in a manner that is respectful and with the view to
building relationships with researchers rather than alienating them). But
then we need to have the academic integrity to attribute our opinions in
order to invite dialogue with them.

Best,
Heather.

Heather Ford
Oxford Internet Institute http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk Doctoral Programme
EthnographyMatters http://ethnographymatters.net | Oxford Digital
Ethnography Group http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=115
http://hblog.org | @hfordsa http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa




On 3 July 2014 21:17, Taha Yasseri taha.yas...@gmail.com wrote:

 Thanks Stuart, Max, and Heather,
 But let's keep things simple and efficient (as it is right now).
 If we want to use bylines for all the contributions, then the next
 question would be whether we have to use the real names or Wikipedia user
 names or even IP addresses would be enough or not (IP address is enough in
 some of Stuart's examples).

 Of course if someone wants to add their name to the review, it should be
 allowed (as it is now), but it also doesn't mean that others can not edit
 that review.

 Also to address concerns about the sentiment and fairness of the reviews
 (which is a valid concern in general), again, everyone is welcome to have a
 look at the draft and the pre-release version to make sure that all the
 reviews are at a conventional quality.
 Usually Dario and Tilman send a link to the draft few days before the
 release and that's the best time for action.

 Best,
 Taha




 On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 8:50 PM, Heather Ford hfor...@gmail.com wrote:

 You're right, Stuart. Having a byline (and not worrying so much about
 what is said) is probably enough because it would be clear who is speaking.

 I have reviewed in the past and want to start again now that I have a bit
 more time. Dario, Tilman, you usually let us know when things

Re: [Wiki-research-l] this month's research newsletter

[Heather Ford]

Thanks so much for this, Kerry. And thanks, Aaron for (as always) great,
productive suggestions.

I think there are two issues that need to be dealt with separately here.
The first is about disparaging remarks made about researchers'
contributions that kicked off this discussion. One idea that I had when I
saw a similar problem earlier this year was to at least have reviewers add
their names to reviews so that we are making a clear distinction between
the opinion of a single reviewer and the community/organisation as a whole.
Some reviewers have added their names to reviews (thank you!) but I think
that needs to be a standard for the newsletter. This probably won't solve
the problem completely but hopefully reviewers will be more thoughtful
about their critique in the future.

The second is to encourage research about Wikipedia that engages with the
Wikimedia community. And yes, I, too, think that awards and
acknowledgements are great ideas. I'd say that, when evaluating, engagement
is even more important than impact because we want to encourage students
and researchers at various stages of their careers (many of whom would not
win awards for impact) to engage with the community when working on these
projects. Of course, this kind of work is necessarily going to have more
impact because Wikimedians themselves are going to be a part of it somehow.
For this, I definitely agree with some kind of acknowledgement of research
done - beyond, perhaps, just one or two star researchers winning a few
awards. This can be done together e.g. awards for best papers in different
categories but also acknowledgements for work with the community on
particular projects as suggested by Kerry.

Best,
Heather.

Heather Ford
Oxford Internet Institute http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk Doctoral Programme
EthnographyMatters http://ethnographymatters.net | Oxford Digital
Ethnography Group http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=115
http://hblog.org | @hfordsa http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa




On 3 July 2014 02:56, Kerry Raymond kerry.raym...@gmail.com wrote:

 Having had a work role oversighting many university researchers including
 PHD and other research students, I think many start out with intentions to
 engage fully with stakeholders and contribute back into the real world in
 some way, but it's fair to say that deadline pressures tend to force them
 to focus their energies into the academically valued outcomes, e.g.
 published papers, theses, etc. This is just as true for Wikipedia-related
 research as for, say, aquaculture. Of course, some never intended to
 contribute back, but are solely motivated by climbing the greasy pole of
 academia.

 Because data gathering can be a time-consuming or expensive stumbling
 block in a research plan, organisations that freely publish detailed data
  (as WMF does) are natural magnets to researchers who can use that data to
 study various phenomena which may have broader relevance than just
 Wikipedia or where the Wikipedia data serves as a ground truth for other
 experiments or as proxy for other unavailable data. For example, you can
 use Wikipedia to study categorisation or named entity extraction without
 having real interest in Wikipedia itself.

 So I think it is for those who are passionate about Wikipedia itself to
 see how such research findings may be used to improve Wikipedia. As for
 releasing source code, it has to recognised that software in research
 projects is often very quick-and-dirty and probably not designed to be
 integrated into the MediaWiki code base. Effective solutions to Wikipedia
 issues often require a mix of technology and change to community
 process/culture (which is often far harder to get right).

 This is not to say they we should not encourage researchers to give
 back, but I think we do need to understand that the reasons people don't
 give back aren't always attributable solely to bad faith.

 In additions to suggestions already made re awards, just having a letter
 of commendation on WMF letterhead acknowledging the research and its
 potential to improve Wikipedia would be a useful thing especially for
 junior researchers seeking to establish themselves; this kind of external
 validation is helpful to their CVs. This could be sent to any researchers
 whose research was deemed to have merit with different wording for those
 who made (according to some appropriately-appointed group) greater or
 lesser contributions to real Wikipedia impact.

 Sent from my iPad

 On 3 Jul 2014, at 12:15 am, Aaron Halfaker aaron.halfa...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Given that it seems we agree with Poitr's desire for research about
 Wikipedia to lead to useful tools an insights that can be directly applied
 to making Wikipedia and other wikis better, what might be a more effective
 strategy for encouraging researchers to engage with us or at least release
 their work in forms that we can more easily work with?

 Here's a couple of half-baked ideas:

- *Wiki research impact task

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Quality on different language version

[Heather Ford]

Totally agree with you, Kerry - that there are *very* different ideas about
what constitutes quality. The large diversity in research about quality
taking very different variables into account is testament to that. I'm
interested in your note about page views after Google Knowledge Graph.
According to these stats http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/SummaryEN.htm. Page
views went up from mid-2012 to beginning of 2013 and then they went down
quite sharply but seem to start rising again at the end of 2013. But
perhaps you're seeing other data? Would love to hear your thoughts!

btw, for those asking about historiography, Brendan Luyt [1] has done some
great work on how Wikipedia represents dominant and alternative
historiographies [e.g. 2].

And thanks, Finn, for the great work you continue to do with Wikilit :)

Best,
Heather.

[1] http://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=Xhl9P7oJhl=en
[2] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.21531/full

Heather Ford
Oxford Internet Institute http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk Doctoral Programme
EthnographyMatters http://ethnographymatters.net | Oxford Digital
Ethnography Group http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=115
http://hblog.org | @hfordsa http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa




On 11 June 2014 01:19, Kerry Raymond kerry.raym...@gmail.com wrote:

 Having followed this thread, I am somewhat confused about what is meant by
 the term article quality, even in a single language, yet alone multiple
 languages.

 Sticking just to a single language for the moment ...

 Do we mean that the facts presented are correct? That the kings and queens
 were born and died on the dates stated?

 Do we mean spelling and grammar is correct? Do we mean some kind of logical
 structure? Do we mean some kind of narrative flow that tells the story of
 the topic in a natural and engaging way?

 Do we mean the use of citations? Do we mean whether the citation used
 actually contains information that supports what is said by the text in the
 article with which it is associated?

 Do we mean some kind of completeness of an article? That is, it has all
 the information. If so, what do we do if the topic is split across a number
 of articles {{main|...}}}? Do we assess the group of articles? And what do
 we mean by all anyway?

 Do we mean it meets all the WP policies? Notability? Appropriate use of
 external links? That the Manual of Style has been carefully followed?

 Or do we mean whether it has been assessed as a stub/start/.../good article
 by some review process?

 Whenever I find myself in a discussion about quality (on any subject, not
 just Wikipedia), it pretty much always boils down to fitness for purpose
 as
 perceived by the user. This is why surveying of users is often used to
 measure quality. How well did we serve you today? If anyone has been
 through Singapore Airport recently, you will have encountered the touch
 screens asking to rate on a 1-5 scale just about everything you could
 imagine, every toilet block, every immigration queue, etc. And it does have
 the cleanest toilets and the fastest immigration queues, so maybe there's
 something to be said for the approach.

 I think we need to have some common understanding of what we mean by
 quality, before we try to compare it across languages. And when we do
 compare across languages, then we have to observe that the set of users
 changes and presumably their needs change too.

 It is interesting to note that en.WP page views have dropped consistently
 since Google Knowledge (which generally displays the first para from the
 en.WP article) was introduced. What this tells us is that a certain
 percentage of readers of an article simply want the most basic facts, which
 would be delivered even by a stub article. Suriname is a country on the
 northeastern Atlantic coast of South America certainly met my information
 needs adequately (I heard it mentioned on the TV news in connection with a
 hurricane). After finding out where it was in the world, I could have gone
 on to read about its colonial history, its demographic sexuality, and its
 biodiversity, but I didn't because I didn't have a need to know at that
 moment. My point here is that while we would not generally regard a stub as
 quality, but a percentage of the readers of a stub are probably
 completely
 satisfied.

 Of course, doing surveys of articles with real users is somewhat difficult
 for a research project. But it might be useful to see how user perceptions
 of quality compare with other metrics (particularly those which can be more
 easily generated for a research project). Starting with other metrics,
 without knowing that they are a good proxy for user perception, is probably
 a waste of time.

 Kerry




 ___
 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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Quality on different language version

[Heather Ford]

Hi Anders,

Yes, it's a great question! Mark Graham and I are currently working on a
project around how to determine quality within and between Wikipedias and
I've been looking around for literature. I'm only just starting the
literature review but I've found some interesting studies by Callahan 
Herring (2011) [1] and Stvilia, Al-Faraj, and Yi (2009) [2]. The majority
of quality studies, we find, have been done on English Wikipedia (starting
with the famous 2005 Nature study) but there have been few studies that
assess of quality between languages. If you find anything else, let us know!

Thanks!

Best,
heather.

[1] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.21577/abstract

[2]
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/200773220_Issues_of_cross-contextual_information_quality_evaluation_-_The_case_of_Arabic_English_and_Korean_Wikipedia/file/60b7d51ae682e9912a.pdf





Heather Ford
Oxford Internet Institute http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk Doctoral Programme
EthnographyMatters http://ethnographymatters.net | Oxford Digital
Ethnography Group http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=115
http://hblog.org | @hfordsa http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa




On 10 June 2014 07:58, Anders Wennersten m...@anderswennersten.se wrote:

 (reposted from Wikimedia-i)

 I have several times asked for a professional quality study of our
 different language versions, but not seen it exist or being done, perhaps
 you know more on this list?. before we start the strategy work I  believe
 we should have basic facts on the table like this one

 I therefor list here my subjective impression after daily looking into the
 different version for 5-15 articles (new ones being created on sv.wp) (I
 list them in order how often I use them to calibrate the svwp articles).

 enwp- a magnitude better then any other. main weakeness are articles on
 marginal subjects that seems to be allowed to exist there, even if rather
 bad, and without templates (noone cares to patrol these?)

 eswp - a very  good version, which in the general discussion are not
 getting appropriate credit

 dewp - good when the articles exist, but many serious holes. Is the
 elitist way of running it, discouraging new editors in non obvious subjects
 (that after time passes gets very relevant)?
 frwp - also good, but somewhat scattered quality both in coverage and the
 different articles (even in same subject area)
 nlwp - very good coverage in the geographic subjects, decent quality on
 articles but limited world coverage in areas like biographies
 itwp - good articles but a bit italiancentered,

 nowp - small but decent articles. Their short focused articletext
 sometimes give more easyaccessed knowledge then an overly long one in other
 languages

 ptwp - the real disappointment. it is among the top ten in volume and
 accesses but clearly missing a lot, and even existing articles are uneven.
 I now use it even less then Ukrainian and Russian which I use very seldom
 as the different alphabet makes it hard to understand the article content

 dawp,fiwp and plwp -Ok but only used by me for articles related to the
 country

 (arabic, chinese and japanese I almost never use, too complicated)

 (I also use some smaller ones like sqwp , in these versions I have seen
 serious quality problems not to be found in any of the above ones, I am not
 sure they even have basic patrolling in place)

 Anders

 ___
 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 reviews published on content and on readership

[Heather Ford]

Thanks for sending, Chitu. The concordia links don't seem to be working...

Heather Ford
Oxford Internet Institute http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk Doctoral Programme
EthnographyMatters http://ethnographymatters.net | Oxford Digital
Ethnography Group http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=115
http://hblog.org | @hfordsa http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa




On 12 May 2014 20:03, Chitu Okoli chitu.ok...@concordia.ca wrote:

 Hi everyone,

 We have two Wikipedia literature reviews recently accepted for
 publication, both at the Journal of the American Society for Information
 Science and Technology. Open access versions are available on the Concordia
 University institutional repository:

 * Wikipedia in the eyes of its beholders: A systematic review of scholarly
 research on Wikipedia readers and readership (https://spectrum.library.
 concordia.ca/978617/). This article reviews studies on ranking and
 popularity; Wikipedia as a knowledge source; student readership; and
 commercial aspects of Wikipedia, among other topics.

 * “The sum of all human knowledge”: A systematic review of scholarly
 research on the content of Wikipedia (https://spectrum.library.
 concordia.ca/978618/). This article reviews studies on the quality of
 Wikipedia (including reliability, comprehensive, and antecedents to
 quality) and the size of Wikipedia.

 These are part of our larger literature review on Wikipedia (working paper
 at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2021326; online database of studies at
 http://wikilit.referata.com). We are currently working on detailed,
 focused review papers on other important Wikipedia research topics like
 motivations to participation, collaborative culture, Wikipedia as a textual
 corpus, and other topics.

 Unfortunately, because of the tremendous breadth of the topic, the reviews
 mainly cover journal articles and doctoral theses (with several important
 conference papers) up to 2011-2012.

 We would very much appreciate your comments and feedback on the two
 accepted papers, and on the working paper with the other topics.

 Regards,
 Chitu Okoli
 Mohamad Mehdi
 Mostafa Mesgari
 Finn Årup Nielsen
 Arto Lanamäki

 ___
 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 reviews published on content and on readership

[Heather Ford]

Thanks, Finn!

Heather Ford
Oxford Internet Institute http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk Doctoral Programme
EthnographyMatters http://ethnographymatters.net | Oxford Digital
Ethnography Group http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=115
http://hblog.org | @hfordsa http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa




On 13 May 2014 13:43, Finn Årup Nielsen f...@imm.dtu.dk wrote:

 Dear Heather,


 Yes, the entire spectrum.library.concordia.ca seems to be down. This is
 probably just temporarily. Until it gets up again you may try these links:


 Wikipedia in the eyes of its beholders: a systematic review of scholarly
 research on Wikipedia readers and readership
 http://www2.compute.dtu.dk/pubdb/views/edoc_download.php/
 6785/pdf/imm6785.pdf

 The sum of all human knowledge: a systematic review of scholarly
 research on the content of Wikipedia
 http://www2.compute.dtu.dk/pubdb/views/edoc_download.php/
 6784/pdf/imm6784.pdf


 Finn Årup Nielsen
 http://www.compute.dtu.dk/~faan/



 On 05/13/2014 09:43 AM, Heather Ford wrote:

 Thanks for sending, Chitu. The concordia links don't seem to be working...

 Heather Ford
 Oxford Internet Institute http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk Doctoral Programme
 EthnographyMatters http://ethnographymatters.net | Oxford Digital
 Ethnography Group http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=115
 http://hblog.org http://hblog.org/ | @hfordsa
 http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa





 On 12 May 2014 20:03, Chitu Okoli chitu.ok...@concordia.ca
 mailto:chitu.ok...@concordia.ca wrote:

 Hi everyone,

 We have two Wikipedia literature reviews recently accepted for
 publication, both at the Journal of the American Society for
 Information Science and Technology. Open access versions are
 available on the Concordia University institutional repository:

 * Wikipedia in the eyes of its beholders: A systematic review of
 scholarly research on Wikipedia readers and readership
 (https://spectrum.library.__concordia.ca/978617/
 https://spectrum.library.concordia.ca/978617/). This article

 reviews studies on ranking and popularity; Wikipedia as a knowledge
 source; student readership; and commercial aspects of Wikipedia,
 among other topics.

 * “The sum of all human knowledge”: A systematic review of scholarly
 research on the content of Wikipedia
 (https://spectrum.library.__concordia.ca/978618/
 https://spectrum.library.concordia.ca/978618/). This article

 reviews studies on the quality of Wikipedia (including reliability,
 comprehensive, and antecedents to quality) and the size of Wikipedia.

 These are part of our larger literature review on Wikipedia (working
 paper at http://ssrn.com/abstract=__2021326

 http://ssrn.com/abstract=2021326; online database of studies at
 http://wikilit.referata.com). We are currently working on detailed,
 focused review papers on other important Wikipedia research topics
 like motivations to participation, collaborative culture, Wikipedia
 as a textual corpus, and other topics.

 Unfortunately, because of the tremendous breadth of the topic, the
 reviews mainly cover journal articles and doctoral theses (with
 several important conference papers) up to 2011-2012.

 We would very much appreciate your comments and feedback on the two
 accepted papers, and on the working paper with the other topics.

 Regards,
 Chitu Okoli
 Mohamad Mehdi
 Mostafa Mesgari
 Finn Årup Nielsen
 Arto Lanamäki

 _
 Wiki-research-l mailing list
 Wiki-research-l@lists.__wikimedia.org
 mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/__mailman/listinfo/wiki-__research-l
 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

___
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

[Heather Ford]

Yay! Very cool to see this :)

Heather Ford
Oxford Internet Institute http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk Doctoral Programme
EthnographyMatters http://ethnographymatters.net | Oxford Digital
Ethnography Group http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=115
http://hblog.org | @hfordsa http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa




On 26 February 2014 23:43, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Upcoming research newsletter: new papers open for review

[Heather Ford]

Hi Max :)

Thanks for adding your name to the review! Not quite sure I understand your
question about other wiki sites that we could emulate? The research
newsletter is pretty much single author per review so it's not really done
in a 'wiki way' (e.g. by many authors producing a single review) other than
using wiki software so I don't think anything is needed other than simply
adding the byline next to the headline of the review as well as to at the
top of the newsletter as per current practice.

I'm thinking that these bylines wouldn't be needed for the snippets but
rather for the more significant reviews.

What do you think?

Or were you asking about other methods of actually producing the signpost?

Heather Ford
Oxford Internet Institute http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk Doctoral Programme
EthnographyMatters http://ethnographymatters.net | Oxford Digital
Ethnography Group http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=115
http://hblog.org | @hfordsa http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa




On 25 February 2014 20:35, Klein,Max kle...@oclc.org wrote:

 Great idea Heather,

 I will add my name to my review. Do you know any other review sites that
 aggregate in a wiki way that we could emulate?

 Maximilian Klein
 Wikipedian in Residence, OCLC
 +17074787023

 
 From: wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org 
 wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Tilman Bayer 
 tba...@wikimedia.org
 Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 9:16 AM
 To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
 Cc: A mailing list for the Analytics Team at WMF and everybody who has an
   interest in Wikipedia and analytics.
 Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Upcoming research newsletter: new papers
 open for review

 Hi Heather,

 that's a cool idea, and we have actually been considering something
 like this already. While the names of the reviewers are prominently
 displayed in the byline on top (and also, many readers of the Signpost
 and the newsletter are of course experienced in reading version
 histories), showing them next to each review might be make attribution
 easier. We just haven't found the time to implement it yet, like with
 many other things for the newsletter. You are welcome to figure out a
 suitable format and add these attributions in the upcoming issue,
 let's follow up offlist if more information is needed.

 On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 1:11 AM, Heather Ford hfor...@gmail.com wrote:
  Thanks, Dario, Tilman!
 
  I was wondering whether it would be helpful to add reviewer
 names/usernames
  to individual signpost reviews. I was struck while reading a review of a
  paper on Signpost recently that I felt like the reviewer was inserting
 some
  very opinionated statements about the article rather than the regular
  summaries. While I don't think that this is a problem necessarily
 (although
  I wish that they were a bit more informed about the topic and social
 science
  research in general), I do think it can be problematic to have these
  comments unattributed. Would be interested to hear what others think...
 
  Best,
  Heather.
 
  Heather Ford
  Oxford Internet Institute Doctoral Programme
  EthnographyMatters | Oxford Digital Ethnography Group
  http://hblog.org | @hfordsa
 
 
 
 
  On 25 February 2014 05:26, Tilman Bayer tba...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 
  Hi Max,
 
  yes, we're co-publishing with the Signpost, so the ultimate deadline
  is the Signpost's actual publication time. Its formal publication date
  is this Wednesday (the 26th) UTC, although actual publication might
  take place several hours or even a few days later. Thanks for signing
  up to review the Editor's Biases paper, I'm looking forward to
  reading your summary!
 
  On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Klein,Max kle...@oclc.org wrote:
   Dario, what's the timeframe for writing reviews so they can get into
 the
   signpost in time. 25th?
  
   Maximilian Klein
   Wikipedian in Residence, OCLC
   +17074787023
  
   
   From: wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
   wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Dario
 Taraborelli
   dtarabore...@wikimedia.org
   Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 8:11 AM
   To: A mailing list for the Analytics Team at WMF and everybody who has
   an   interest in Wikipedia and analytics.; Research into Wikimedia
   content and communities
   Subject: [Wiki-research-l] Upcoming research newsletter: new papers
 open
   forreview
  
   Hi everybody,
  
   with CSCW just concluded and conferences like CHI and WWW coming up we
   have a good set of papers to review for the February issue of the
 Research
   Newsletter [1]
  
   Please take a look at: https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/WRN201402 and
   add your name next to any paper you are interested in reviewing. As
 usual,
   short notes and one-paragraph reviews are most welcome.
  
   Instead of contacting past contributors only, this month we're
   experimenting

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Upcoming research newsletter: new papers open for review

[Heather Ford]

Thanks, Dario, Tilman!

I was wondering whether it would be helpful to add reviewer names/usernames
to individual signpost reviews. I was struck while reading a review of a
paper on Signpost recently that I felt like the reviewer was inserting some
very opinionated statements about the article rather than the regular
summaries. While I don't think that this is a problem necessarily (although
I wish that they were a bit more informed about the topic and social
science research in general), I do think it can be problematic to have
these comments unattributed. Would be interested to hear what others
think...

Best,
Heather.

Heather Ford
Oxford Internet Institute http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk Doctoral Programme
EthnographyMatters http://ethnographymatters.net | Oxford Digital
Ethnography Group http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=115
http://hblog.org | @hfordsa http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa




On 25 February 2014 05:26, Tilman Bayer tba...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 Hi Max,

 yes, we're co-publishing with the Signpost, so the ultimate deadline
 is the Signpost's actual publication time. Its formal publication date
 is this Wednesday (the 26th) UTC, although actual publication might
 take place several hours or even a few days later. Thanks for signing
 up to review the Editor's Biases paper, I'm looking forward to
 reading your summary!

 On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Klein,Max kle...@oclc.org wrote:
  Dario, what's the timeframe for writing reviews so they can get into the
 signpost in time. 25th?
 
  Maximilian Klein
  Wikipedian in Residence, OCLC
  +17074787023
 
  
  From: wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org 
 wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Dario
 Taraborelli dtarabore...@wikimedia.org
  Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 8:11 AM
  To: A mailing list for the Analytics Team at WMF and everybody who has
 an   interest in Wikipedia and analytics.; Research into Wikimedia
 content and communities
  Subject: [Wiki-research-l] Upcoming research newsletter: new papers open
 forreview
 
  Hi everybody,
 
  with CSCW just concluded and conferences like CHI and WWW coming up we
 have a good set of papers to review for the February issue of the Research
 Newsletter [1]
 
  Please take a look at: https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/WRN201402 and
 add your name next to any paper you are interested in reviewing. As usual,
 short notes and one-paragraph reviews are most welcome.
 
  Instead of contacting past contributors only, this month we're
 experimenting with a public call for reviews cross-posted to analytics-l
 and wiki-research-l. if you have any question about the format or process
 feel free to get in touch off-list.
 
  Dario Taraborelli and Tilman Bayer
 
  [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter
  ___
  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



 --
 Tilman Bayer
 Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
 Wikimedia Foundation
 IRC (Freenode): HaeB

 ___
 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] alternative to wikirage?

[Heather Ford]

I love the app, Tom! Looks great :) I'm afraid my coding abilities are
really rusty and I'm on deadline for a journal article for this so would
really appreciate your help! Will contact you offlist and we can share back
the results here.

Many, many thanks.

Best,
Heather.

Heather Ford
Oxford Internet Institute http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk Doctoral Programme
EthnographyMatters http://ethnographymatters.net | Oxford Digital
Ethnography Group http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=115
http://hblog.org | @hfordsa http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa




On 14 January 2014 08:59, Thomas Steiner to...@google.com wrote:

 Hi Heather,

  Anyone
  know of an alternative way of (easily) finding the most popularly edited
 and
  viewed articles on Wikipedia?

 While there may be already existing tools out there to get you the
 data, if you are not afraid of a small amount of code, for the
 edited part, you could hook up a simple Web application to the
 recent changes Server-Sent Event stream API that I make available at
 http://wikipedia-edits.herokuapp.com/sse. A sample application that
 uses it can be seen at http://wikipedia-edits.herokuapp.com/. In the
 application, you listen on edit events of your target language (or
 globally all languages) and just store each article as an object key
 and count up when new edits happen:

 {
   en:Albert_Einstein: 123,
   en:Kurt_Gödel: 456,
   …
 };

 Hope this helps. If not, happy to help you out with a scaffold application.

 Cheers,
 Tom

 --
 Thomas Steiner, Employee, Google Inc.
 http://blog.tomayac.com, http://twitter.com/tomayac

 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
 Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)


 iFy0uwAntT0bE3xtRa5AfeCheCkthAtTh3reSabiGbl0ck0fjumBl3DCharaCTersAttH3b0ttom.hTtP5://xKcd.c0m/1181/
 -END PGP SIGNATURE-

 ___
 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] alternative to wikirage?

[Heather Ford]

Hi Ed,

both, yes :)

Heather Ford
Oxford Internet Institute http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk Doctoral Programme
EthnographyMatters http://ethnographymatters.net | Oxford Digital
Ethnography Group http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=115
http://hblog.org | @hfordsa http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa




On 14 January 2014 14:58, Edward Summers e...@pobox.com wrote:

 Hi Heather,

 Are you interested in historical information about heavily edited topics
 or what’s happening right now? Both or neither?

 //Ed

 On Jan 14, 2014, at 5:01 AM, Heather Ford hfor...@gmail.com wrote:

  I love the app, Tom! Looks great :) I'm afraid my coding abilities are
 really rusty and I'm on deadline for a journal article for this so would
 really appreciate your help! Will contact you offlist and we can share back
 the results here.
 
  Many, many thanks.
 
  Best,
  Heather.
 
  Heather Ford
  Oxford Internet Institute Doctoral Programme
  EthnographyMatters | Oxford Digital Ethnography Group
  http://hblog.org | @hfordsa
 
 
 
 
 
  On 14 January 2014 08:59, Thomas Steiner to...@google.com wrote:
  Hi Heather,
 
   Anyone
   know of an alternative way of (easily) finding the most popularly
 edited and
   viewed articles on Wikipedia?
 
  While there may be already existing tools out there to get you the
  data, if you are not afraid of a small amount of code, for the
  edited part, you could hook up a simple Web application to the
  recent changes Server-Sent Event stream API that I make available at
  http://wikipedia-edits.herokuapp.com/sse. A sample application that
  uses it can be seen at http://wikipedia-edits.herokuapp.com/. In the
  application, you listen on edit events of your target language (or
  globally all languages) and just store each article as an object key
  and count up when new edits happen:
 
  {
en:Albert_Einstein: 123,
en:Kurt_Gödel: 456,
…
  };
 
  Hope this helps. If not, happy to help you out with a scaffold
 application.
 
  Cheers,
  Tom
 
  --
  Thomas Steiner, Employee, Google Inc.
  http://blog.tomayac.com, http://twitter.com/tomayac
 
  -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
  Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
 
 
 iFy0uwAntT0bE3xtRa5AfeCheCkthAtTh3reSabiGbl0ck0fjumBl3DCharaCTersAttH3b0ttom.hTtP5://xKcd.c0m/1181/
  -END PGP SIGNATURE-
 
  ___
  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

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

[Wiki-research-l] alternative to wikirage?

[Heather Ford]

Looks like wikirage is on sabbatical [http://www.wikirage.com/]. Anyone
know of an alternative way of (easily) finding the most popularly edited
and viewed articles on Wikipedia?

Thanks in advance :)

Best,
Heather.

Heather Ford
Oxford Internet Institute http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk Doctoral Programme
EthnographyMatters http://ethnographymatters.net | Oxford Digital
Ethnography Group http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=115
http://hblog.org | @hfordsa http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

[Wiki-research-l] WikiSym proceedings available

[Heather Ford]

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

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

[Heather Ford]

On Aug 5, 2013, at 10:25 AM, Samuel Klein wrote:

 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!

Thanks, SJ :) Yes! Shilad, Dave and I just met in Minneapolis to make plans :)

 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

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

[Wiki-research-l] any research on Wikipedia images?

[Heather Ford]

Does anyone know of research on images on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons?

Thanks in advance!

Best,
heather.

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

[Wiki-research-l] wikisym deadline (for most tracks) extended to 2 April

[Heather Ford]

Just announced 
http://www.wikisym.org/2013/03/14/research-paper-deadline-extension-for-wsos-2013/
 

:)

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

[Wiki-research-l] March 17: Wikipedia Track deadline for WikiSym 2013

[Heather Ford]

Reminder that there are only 10 days left to submit your papers to the 
Wikipedia Track at this year's WikiSym! 

http://www.wikisym.org/wsos2013/submitting/wikipedia

Looking forward to reading :)

Best,
Heather and Mark 


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

[Wiki-research-l] Just under 2 months til WikiSym paper deadline!

[Heather Ford]

The full CFP for the Wikipedia Track is here: 
http://opensym.org/wsos2013/submitting/wikipedia 

Other CFPs (for community track, open access/data/government track, 
free/libre/open source software track and open collaboration track) are 
available here http://opensym.org/wsos2013/ 

So looking forward to it!

Best,
Heather.


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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] advice on Wikipedia topics for WikiSym 2013

[Heather Ford]

Thanks so much for your input on the WikiSym CFP! This is the latest draft of 
the topics section with the addition of 3 extra topics related to gender, 
education and institutionalisation suggested by members of this list. Remember 
that these are just ways of inspiring people to think of things to write about 
or to see their own work represented here. It isn't meant to be comprehensive. 
Any paper related to Wikipedia research will be reviewed in this track (with 
broader topics related to open collaboration, open data etc reviewed in other 
WikiSym + OpenSym topics):

'Topics of interest to the Wikipedia research track include, but are not 
limited to:
• What do particular articles or groups or articles tell us about the 
norms, governance and architecture of Wikipedia and its impact on media, 
politics and the social sphere? How is information on Wikipedia being shaped by 
the materiality of Wikipedia infrastructure? 
• What is the impact of all/some of Wikipedia’s 211 language editions 
having on achieving the project’s goal to represent the “sum of all human 
knowledge”? Do smaller language editions follow the same development path as 
larger language editions? Can different representations in different languages 
tell us anything about cultural, national or regional differences? 
• What are the gender dimensions of Wikipedia editing? How are issues 
around power, knowledge and representation drawn into focus by gender, 
geography and other gaps in Wikipedia editing? 
• What skills/competencies/connections/world views are required to 
become an empowered member of the Wikimedia community? What would a Wikipedia 
literate person look like? How might they obtain those 
skills/competencies/connections/world views?
• What is the effect of outreach initiatives involving the growing 
institutionalisation of Wikipedia activities? As galleries, libraries, archives 
and museums hire Wikipedians-in-residence to digitize, showcase and/or 
represent their collections, is Wikipedia able to fill some its key knowledge 
gaps? Or are there unintended effects of this institutionalization of knowledge?
• What are the methodological challenges to studying Wikipedia? How are 
researchers engaging with innovative methodologies to solve some of these 
problems? How are other researchers using traditional or well-established 
methods to study Wikipedia?
• How are wiki projects other than Wikipedia evolving? What are the 
benefits to studying other wiki projects and can comparisons and 
generalisations be made from our observations of these systems? 
• How does information contained in Wikipedia shape our understanding 
of broader social, economic, and political practices and processes? What 
theoretical frameworks in social, economic, legal and other relevant 
theoretical traditions can be applied to enrich the academic discourse on 
Wikipedia?'

Best,
Heather.


On Nov 26, 2012, at 8:58 PM, Dirk Riehle wrote:

 Wikis are big in education, so I'm sure educational topics are welcome. There 
 are plenty of educators.
 
 The open collaboration track (wikis in general, not Wikipedia) may be more 
 suitable. Alternatively, for non-reserach work, the community track.
 
 Cheers,
 Dirk
 
 
 
 On 26.11.2012 05:05, Juliana Bastos Marques wrote:
 Is there any interest on adding a topic related to Education? Sorry for
 insisting on this, but I'd really like to know whether I should focus my
 efforts on this group or start from the ground - in terms of congresses and
 journals - in another one.
 
 Juliana.
 
 
 
 On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Fuster, Mayo mayo.fus...@eui.eu
 mailto:mayo.fus...@eui.eu wrote:
 
Great! Thank you Heather.
 
You did not make reference in your reply to it so it is difficult to know
if you consider it, but I still think adding gender question into the call
for papers would be a good idea.
 
Thank you again. Cheers! Mayo
 
  «·´`·.(*·.¸(`·.¸ ¸.·´)¸.·*).·´`·»
«·´¨*·¸¸« Mayo Fuster Morell ».¸.·*¨`·»@Lilaroja
   «·´`·.(¸.·´(¸.·* *·.¸)`·.¸).·´`·»
 
Fellow. Berkman Center for Internet and Society. Harvard University.
Researcher. Institute of Government and Public Policies. Autonomous
University of Barcelona.
Ph.D European University Institute
 
Website: http://www.onlinecreation.info

From: wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
mailto:wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
[wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
mailto:wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] on behalf of Heather
Ford [hfor...@gmail.com mailto:hfor...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 11:32 PM
To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
Cc: Mark Graham
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] advice on Wikipedia topics for WikiSym 2013
 
Thank you, Mayo :)
 
I think one of the problems

Re: [Wiki-research-l] advice on Wikipedia topics for WikiSym 2013

[Heather Ford]

Apologies for my very tardy response!

More below:

On Nov 26, 2012, at 8:56 PM, Dirk Riehle wrote:

 Hello everyone,
 
 I think one of the problems with WikiSym - especially the research tracks - 
 is
 that it is (mostly) an academic conference and so is almost entirely 
 dependent
 on the academic pool (+ funding challenges etc) for participants. That said,
 
 not sure what the actual problem is that you are pointing to. The research 
 tracks are set up the way they are set up to provide researchers with a 
 quality-controlled publication mechanism that evaluates (and values) their 
 work. Academic currency, that is :-)

I was referring to the comparison with OK Fest and Personal Democracy Forum 
which don't seem to be academic conferences. And I meant that when you have 
broader events like the latter, you're able to get funding for specific groups 
to be represented, whereas with an academic conference, you're limited by the 
academic pool and less participation funding. Unless I'm wrong, Dirk? Do you 
guys have funding to focus on involving more women, for example?
 
 Conference cost is a wholly separate issue. WikiSym + OpenSym is very cheap 
 compared to most other academic conferences, and we are constantly pushing 
 for lowering the prices.

I guess it doesn't matter how cheap the conference itself is. Travel funding 
will always be the limiting factor. 
 
 we're co-located with Wikimania this year which means that hopefully we can
 draw from a larger group of practitioners and researchers.
 
 The community track as well as open space will provide lots of outlets for 
 anything that does not have to or does not want to pass academic peer review. 
 There's ample space!

Exactly! 

Best,
Heather.

 
 I'll definitely reach out to the WikiWomen's Collective and hopefully with
 enough time to plan ahead, we'll be able to engage more women in next year's
 event!
 
 Sounds good to me.
 
 Dirk
 
 
 
 On Nov 23, 2012, at 7:57 PM, Fuster, Mayo wrote:
 
 Hello!
 
 Thank you Heather for the note!. The call looks interesting to me, but I
 would suggest to add gender inclusion as a topic at the call for paper, as
 it is a central problem in Wikipedia.
 
 Additionally, I would encourage the organizers of Wikisym 2013 to make an
 extra effort in order to assure engaging women in the conference. In 2012,
 the organizers of Wikisym were highly predominantly male: 89% of the
 Symposium Committee, 78% of the Program Committee, and 80% of the program of
 speakers were men (according to the data provided at
 http://www.wikisym.org/ws2012/bin/view/Main/Schedule). While other
 technological related conference (such as OK Fest and Personal Democracy
 Forum) are able to engage a better gender balance (data provided here:
 http://wiki.digital-commons.net/Gender).
 
 In case it could he of help, this wiki collect best practices to engage
 women in technology related conferences and list of women experts:
 http://wiki.digital-commons.net/Gender
 
 The WikiWomen's Collaborative wiki might also be a useful resource:
 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:WikiWomen%27s_Collaborative
 
 Thank you again. Have a nice day! Mayo
 
«·´`·.(*·.¸(`·.¸ ¸.·´)¸.·*).·´`·»
 «·´¨*·¸¸« Mayo Fuster Morell ».¸.·*¨`·»@Lilaroja
 «·´`·.(¸.·´(¸.·* *·.¸)`·.¸).·´`·»
 
 Fellow. Berkman Center for Internet and Society. Harvard University.
 Researcher. Institute of Government and Public Policies. Autonomous
 University of Barcelona.
 Ph.D European University Institute
 
 Website: http://www.onlinecreation.info
 
 From: wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
 mailto:wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
 [wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] on behalf of Heather Ford
 [hfor...@gmail.com]
 Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 8:34 PM
 To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
 Cc: Mark Graham
 Subject: [Wiki-research-l] advice on Wikipedia topics for WikiSym 2013
 
 Mark Graham and I are co-chairs of the Wikipedia Track at next year's
 WikiSym conference (now with added OpenSym!) and we're preparing the call
 for papers to go out Friday week. There has been such great discussion on
 this list in the past about what is currently missing from Wikipedia
 research that I thought I'd send our draft to you in case there are items
 that you think we might add? Our current suggestions below:
 
   • What do particular articles or groups or articles tell us about the
 norms, governance and architecture of Wikipedia and its impact on media,
 politics and the social sphere? How is information on Wikipedia being shaped
 by the materiality of Wikipedia infrastructure?
 
   • What is the impact of all/some of Wikipedia’s 211 language editions
 having on achieving the project’s goal to represent the “sum of all human
 knowledge”? Do smaller language editions follow the same development path as
 larger language editions? Can different representations in different
 languages tell

Re: [Wiki-research-l] advice on Wikipedia topics for WikiSym 2013

[Heather Ford]

Thank you so much for your thoughts and comment, Han-Teng! I hope this means 
that you'll be participating next year :)

On Nov 24, 2012, at 3:57 PM, Han-Teng Liao wrote:

 As a researcher I really like the first three items.
 
 I am not sure about the third one. Is it designed to connect this
 track with the Wikipedia Track, and/or in relation to other tracks?

This one? What are the methodological challenges to studying Wikipedia? How 
are researchers engaging with innovative methodologies to solve some of these 
problems? How are other researchers using traditional or well-established 
methods to study Wikipedia?

This *is* the Wikipedia Track :) So not sure what you mean when you say 
'connect this track with the Wikipedia Track' (it is confusing, I know!) 

Mark and I thought it would be really useful to have people write and talk 
about their methods when studying Wikipedia - especially since it is such an 
interdisciplinary field. 

 
 The fifth item seems a bit general.

Yes, I think Mark can pitch in here but we thought that it would be good to 
link Wikipedia research back to social theory because that is sometimes lacking 
in the research. But perhaps we should tighten it up a bit?

 It might be helpful to have a look
 at what the Wikimania is doing:
   http://wikimania2013.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions

Yes, thank you! Interesting that they have an 'academic track' this year...
 
 I would guess that since Wikipedia projects are increasingly organized
 and expanded, various cultural and educational activities have been
 happening (or about to happen) in a more organized way by various
 actors, such as local chapters, partners of Cultural and Education
 Outreach programs and GLAM – galleries, libraries, archives and
 museums – institutions. It might be a good idea to frame this sort of
 civic- or digital- literacy efforts, under/over a loftier UN-like
 Human Development agenda (and more interestingly I believe, data!)

Sounds interesting but not sure I understand the suggestion? If you're 
suggesting we frame another research area/question around how institutions are 
interacting with Wikipedia, then I think that's a great idea!
 
 Finally, just a gap I sense is worth covering. I see there are efforts
 to use Wikipedia simply as big data for research in different domains,
 treating it as big language corpus, sentiment databases, business
 intelligence, visualization, etc. Sometimes such discipline-specific
 research does not overlap much and/or does not show up in wikisym or
 wikimania. Still, because of the fact they all approach Wikipedia for
 data, it may be a good idea to grow a platform where researchers can
 share various ways and experiences dealing with the big data
 Wikipedia.

Yes, good idea! I'm thinking that we should fit this into the methods area

 I personally believe that a research ecology around the
 Wikipedia the big data may be emerging, if the relevant data, tools
 and crafts begin to grow around Wikipedia. I agree with Heather that
 we may have too much big data analysis on the English version of
 Wikipedia (wink wink), but it may be relevant to use this opportunity
 to document, or even conduct ethnography work on various human efforts
 trying to use various tools of big data to (mis-)read/use/exploit
 Wikipedia differently.

I totally agree (as you might have guessed ;) 

Best,
Heather.
 
 Best,
 han-teng liao
 
 On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 3:34 AM, Heather Ford hfor...@gmail.com wrote:
 Mark Graham and I are co-chairs of the Wikipedia Track at next year's 
 WikiSym conference (now with added OpenSym!) and we're preparing the call 
 for papers to go out Friday week. There has been such great discussion on 
 this list in the past about what is currently missing from Wikipedia 
 research that I thought I'd send our draft to you in case there are items 
 that you think we might add? Our current suggestions below:
 
• What do particular articles or groups or articles tell us about the 
 norms, governance and architecture of Wikipedia and its impact on media, 
 politics and the social sphere? How is information on Wikipedia being shaped 
 by the materiality of Wikipedia infrastructure?
 
• What is the impact of all/some of Wikipedia’s 211 language editions 
 having on achieving the project’s goal to represent the “sum of all human 
 knowledge”? Do smaller language editions follow the same development path as 
 larger language editions? Can different representations in different 
 languages tell us anything about cultural, national or regional differences?
 
• What are the methodological challenges to studying Wikipedia? How 
 are researchers engaging with innovative methodologies to solve some of 
 these problems? How are other researchers using traditional or 
 well-established methods to study Wikipedia?
 
• How are wiki projects other than Wikipedia evolving? What are the 
 benefits to studying other wiki projects and can comparisons

Re: [Wiki-research-l] advice on Wikipedia topics for WikiSym 2013

[Heather Ford]

On Nov 25, 2012, at 3:56 PM, Fuster, Mayo wrote:

 Great! Thank you Heather.
 
 You did not make reference in your reply to it so it is difficult to know if 
 you consider it,

Oh, sorry - we definitely will be adding it! Thanks!

 but I still think adding gender question into the call for papers would be a 
 good idea. 
 
 Thank you again. Cheers! Mayo
 
 «·´`·.(*·.¸(`·.¸ ¸.·´)¸.·*).·´`·»
 «·´¨*·¸¸« Mayo Fuster Morell ».¸.·*¨`·»@Lilaroja
  «·´`·.(¸.·´(¸.·* *·.¸)`·.¸).·´`·»
 
 Fellow. Berkman Center for Internet and Society. Harvard University.
 Researcher. Institute of Government and Public Policies. Autonomous 
 University of Barcelona.
 Ph.D European University Institute
 
 Website: http://www.onlinecreation.info
 
 From: wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org 
 [wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] on behalf of Heather Ford 
 [hfor...@gmail.com]
 Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 11:32 PM
 To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
 Cc: Mark Graham
 Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] advice on Wikipedia topics for WikiSym 2013
 
 Thank you, Mayo :)
 
 I think one of the problems with WikiSym - especially the research tracks - 
 is that it is (mostly) an academic conference and so is almost entirely 
 dependent on the academic pool (+ funding challenges etc) for participants. 
 That said, we're co-located with Wikimania this year which means that 
 hopefully we can draw from a larger group of practitioners and researchers.
 
 I'll definitely reach out to the WikiWomen's Collective and hopefully with 
 enough time to plan ahead, we'll be able to engage more women in next year's 
 event!
 
 Thanks again for your suggestions.
 
 Best,
 Heather.
 
 On Nov 23, 2012, at 7:57 PM, Fuster, Mayo wrote:
 
 Hello!
 
 Thank you Heather for the note!. The call looks interesting to me, but I 
 would suggest to add gender inclusion as a topic at the call for paper, as it 
 is a central problem in Wikipedia.
 
 Additionally, I would encourage the organizers of Wikisym 2013 to make an 
 extra effort in order to assure engaging women in the conference. In 2012, 
 the organizers of Wikisym were highly predominantly male: 89% of the 
 Symposium Committee, 78% of the Program Committee, and 80% of the program of 
 speakers were men (according to the data provided at 
 http://www.wikisym.org/ws2012/bin/view/Main/Schedule). While other 
 technological related conference (such as OK Fest and Personal Democracy 
 Forum) are able to engage a better gender balance (data provided here:  
 http://wiki.digital-commons.net/Gender).
 
 In case it could he of help, this wiki collect best practices to engage women 
 in technology related conferences and list of women experts: 
 http://wiki.digital-commons.net/Gender
 
 The WikiWomen's Collaborative wiki might also be a useful resource: 
 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:WikiWomen%27s_Collaborative
 
 Thank you again. Have a nice day! Mayo
 
«·´`·.(*·.¸(`·.¸ ¸.·´)¸.·*).·´`·»
 «·´¨*·¸¸« Mayo Fuster Morell ».¸.·*¨`·»@Lilaroja
 «·´`·.(¸.·´(¸.·* *·.¸)`·.¸).·´`·»
 
 Fellow. Berkman Center for Internet and Society. Harvard University.
 Researcher. Institute of Government and Public Policies. Autonomous 
 University of Barcelona.
 Ph.D European University Institute
 
 Website: http://www.onlinecreation.info
 
 From: 
 wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
  [wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] on behalf of Heather Ford 
 [hfor...@gmail.com]
 Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 8:34 PM
 To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
 Cc: Mark Graham
 Subject: [Wiki-research-l] advice on Wikipedia topics for WikiSym 2013
 
 Mark Graham and I are co-chairs of the Wikipedia Track at next year's WikiSym 
 conference (now with added OpenSym!) and we're preparing the call for papers 
 to go out Friday week. There has been such great discussion on this list in 
 the past about what is currently missing from Wikipedia research that I 
 thought I'd send our draft to you in case there are items that you think we 
 might add? Our current suggestions below:
 
   • What do particular articles or groups or articles tell us about the 
 norms, governance and architecture of Wikipedia and its impact on media, 
 politics and the social sphere? How is information on Wikipedia being shaped 
 by the materiality of Wikipedia infrastructure?
 
   • What is the impact of all/some of Wikipedia’s 211 language editions 
 having on achieving the project’s goal to represent the “sum of all human 
 knowledge”? Do smaller language editions follow the same development path as 
 larger language editions? Can different representations in different 
 languages tell us anything about cultural, national or regional differences?
 
   • What are the methodological challenges to studying Wikipedia? How

[Wiki-research-l] advice on Wikipedia topics for WikiSym 2013

[Heather Ford]

Mark Graham and I are co-chairs of the Wikipedia Track at next year's WikiSym 
conference (now with added OpenSym!) and we're preparing the call for papers to 
go out Friday week. There has been such great discussion on this list in the 
past about what is currently missing from Wikipedia research that I thought I'd 
send our draft to you in case there are items that you think we might add? Our 
current suggestions below:

• What do particular articles or groups or articles tell us about the 
norms, governance and architecture of Wikipedia and its impact on media, 
politics and the social sphere? How is information on Wikipedia being shaped by 
the materiality of Wikipedia infrastructure? 

• What is the impact of all/some of Wikipedia’s 211 language editions 
having on achieving the project’s goal to represent the “sum of all human 
knowledge”? Do smaller language editions follow the same development path as 
larger language editions? Can different representations in different languages 
tell us anything about cultural, national or regional differences? 

• What are the methodological challenges to studying Wikipedia? How are 
researchers engaging with innovative methodologies to solve some of these 
problems? How are other researchers using traditional or well-established 
methods to study Wikipedia?

• How are wiki projects other than Wikipedia evolving? What are the 
benefits to studying other wiki projects and can comparisons and 
generalisations be made from our observations of these systems? 

• How does information contained in Wikipedia shape our understanding 
of broader social, economic, and political practices and processes? What 
theoretical frameworks in social, economic, legal and other relevant 
theoretical traditions can be applied to enrich the academic discourse on 
Wikipedia?

Also really looking forward to some great papers next year. We think that it's 
a really good thing that Wikipedia research has a separate track next year and 
we're hoping that it's going to really strengthen the quality of research. 
Looking forward to any suggestions you might have.

Best,
Heather.

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] advice on Wikipedia topics for WikiSym 2013

[Heather Ford]

Wonderful suggestions, Joe!
 
 It's not just failed Wikipedias but successful
 non-Wikipedias that need to be highlighted and compared to Wikipedia
 itself.

As someone who is doing their DPhil on deleted pages and banned users on 
Wikipedia, I think this is a glorious idea :) I am going to try and construct a 
good paragraph about critical research being welcomed and talk more with our 
CPOV group about this based on your suggestions and comments below. 

 
 In short, the purpose would be to engage in scholarly, inciteful,
 Wikipedia-bashing.  What is irreparably flawed in the design?  (More
 politely: if we were to do it all over again, what would we do
 differently?)  Why is it so unappealing to potential women editors
 (per above)?  What are the other outstanding failures of Wikipedia?
 
 Along with this initiative, I suggest inviting Domas Mituzas
 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fuzheado/228629484/) to give a keynote.

Ok! Will send onto the organizing committee. Any particular things I should add 
with the note about why he would be suited?

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

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] advice on Wikipedia topics for WikiSym 2013

[Heather Ford]

Thank you, Mayo :)

I think one of the problems with WikiSym - especially the research tracks - is 
that it is (mostly) an academic conference and so is almost entirely dependent 
on the academic pool (+ funding challenges etc) for participants. That said, 
we're co-located with Wikimania this year which means that hopefully we can 
draw from a larger group of practitioners and researchers. 

I'll definitely reach out to the WikiWomen's Collective and hopefully with 
enough time to plan ahead, we'll be able to engage more women in next year's 
event!

Thanks again for your suggestions.

Best,
Heather.

On Nov 23, 2012, at 7:57 PM, Fuster, Mayo wrote:

 Hello!
 
 Thank you Heather for the note!. The call looks interesting to me, but I 
 would suggest to add gender inclusion as a topic at the call for paper, as it 
 is a central problem in Wikipedia. 
 
 Additionally, I would encourage the organizers of Wikisym 2013 to make an 
 extra effort in order to assure engaging women in the conference. In 2012, 
 the organizers of Wikisym were highly predominantly male: 89% of the 
 Symposium Committee, 78% of the Program Committee, and 80% of the program of 
 speakers were men (according to the data provided at 
 http://www.wikisym.org/ws2012/bin/view/Main/Schedule). While other 
 technological related conference (such as OK Fest and Personal Democracy 
 Forum) are able to engage a better gender balance (data provided here:  
 http://wiki.digital-commons.net/Gender).  
 
 In case it could he of help, this wiki collect best practices to engage women 
 in technology related conferences and list of women experts: 
 http://wiki.digital-commons.net/Gender
 
 The WikiWomen's Collaborative wiki might also be a useful resource: 
 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:WikiWomen%27s_Collaborative
 
 Thank you again. Have a nice day! Mayo
 
 «·´`·.(*·.¸(`·.¸ ¸.·´)¸.·*).·´`·»
 «·´¨*·¸¸« Mayo Fuster Morell ».¸.·*¨`·»@Lilaroja
  «·´`·.(¸.·´(¸.·* *·.¸)`·.¸).·´`·»
 
 Fellow. Berkman Center for Internet and Society. Harvard University.
 Researcher. Institute of Government and Public Policies. Autonomous 
 University of Barcelona.
 Ph.D European University Institute
 
 Website: http://www.onlinecreation.info
 
 From: wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org 
 [wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] on behalf of Heather Ford 
 [hfor...@gmail.com]
 Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 8:34 PM
 To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
 Cc: Mark Graham
 Subject: [Wiki-research-l] advice on Wikipedia topics for WikiSym 2013
 
 Mark Graham and I are co-chairs of the Wikipedia Track at next year's WikiSym 
 conference (now with added OpenSym!) and we're preparing the call for papers 
 to go out Friday week. There has been such great discussion on this list in 
 the past about what is currently missing from Wikipedia research that I 
 thought I'd send our draft to you in case there are items that you think we 
 might add? Our current suggestions below:
 
• What do particular articles or groups or articles tell us about the 
 norms, governance and architecture of Wikipedia and its impact on media, 
 politics and the social sphere? How is information on Wikipedia being shaped 
 by the materiality of Wikipedia infrastructure?
 
• What is the impact of all/some of Wikipedia’s 211 language editions 
 having on achieving the project’s goal to represent the “sum of all human 
 knowledge”? Do smaller language editions follow the same development path as 
 larger language editions? Can different representations in different 
 languages tell us anything about cultural, national or regional differences?
 
• What are the methodological challenges to studying Wikipedia? How 
 are researchers engaging with innovative methodologies to solve some of these 
 problems? How are other researchers using traditional or well-established 
 methods to study Wikipedia?
 
• How are wiki projects other than Wikipedia evolving? What are the 
 benefits to studying other wiki projects and can comparisons and 
 generalisations be made from our observations of these systems?
 
• How does information contained in Wikipedia shape our understanding 
 of broader social, economic, and political practices and processes? What 
 theoretical frameworks in social, economic, legal and other relevant 
 theoretical traditions can be applied to enrich the academic discourse on 
 Wikipedia?
 
 Also really looking forward to some great papers next year. We think that 
 it's a really good thing that Wikipedia research has a separate track next 
 year and we're hoping that it's going to really strengthen the quality of 
 research. Looking forward to any suggestions you might have.
 
 Best,
 Heather.
 
 Heather Ford
 Oxford Internet Institute Doctoral Programme
 www.ethnographymatters.net
 @hfordsa on Twitter
 http://hblog.org

Re: [Wiki-research-l] # of citations on Wikipedia?

[Heather Ford]

I've been collaborating with the group lens folks on citations. They've done 
basic statistics of sources of cites etc across .en. Will ask them about 
sending.

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 20, 2012, at 11:16 AM, Jessie Wild jw...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 I talked about something like this with Liam that GLAM was trying to develop 
 and utilize to inform it's work.
 
 Liam - sorry to call you out like this, but any thoughts on Phoebe's question?
 
 
 On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 5:31 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi all,
 
 Has there been any research done into: the number of citations (e.g.
 to books, journal articles, online sources, everything together) on
 Wikipedia (any language, or all)? The distribution of citations over
 different kinds or qualities of articles? # of uses of citation
 templates? Anything like this?
 
 I realize this is hard to count, averages are meaningless in this
 context, and any number will no doubt be imprecise! But anything would
 be helpful. I have vague memories of seeing some citation studies like
 this but don't remember the details.
 
 Thanks,
 -- phoebe
 
 --
 * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
 at gmail.com *
 
 ___
 Wiki-research-l mailing list
 Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
 
 
 
 -- 
 Jessie Wild
 Global Development, Manager
 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] Full metadata of references covered in WRN Vol. 1 (2011)

[Heather Ford]

This is really helpful, thank you so much Dario!

On Mar 27, 2012, at 1:55 PM, Dario Taraborelli wrote:

 As a follow up to my previous mail (and if you missed this blog post [1]) we 
 shared the entire bibliographic metadata of the references covered in the 
 first volume of the research newsletter here:
 
 http://www.citeulike.org/user/WRN/tag/wrn2011
 
 All papers that are available as OA are marked with an open_access tag and 
 include the URL to the full-text publication on top of the DOI.
 
 You can browse this corpus online or download it in the following formats:
 
 BibTeX
 http://www.citeulike.org/bibtex/user/WRN/tag/wrn2011
 
 RIS
 http://www.citeulike.org/ris/user/WRN/tag/wrn2011
 
 PDF
 http://www.citeulike.org/pdf_export/user/WRN/tag/wrn2011?citation_format=plainfile_format=pdfq=
 
 Best,
 Dario
 
 [1] 
 http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/03/16/wikimedia-research-newsletter-first-volume-new-features/
 ___
 Wiki-research-l mailing list
 Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
 

Heather Ford 
Ethnographer: Ushahidi / SwiftRiver
http://ushahidi.com | http://swiftly.org 
@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

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

[Heather Ford]

; there is no respect at Wikipedia
 for status, but only for evidence.
 People however qualified or expert who have done original research
 that is not yet accepted by their profession will not have their ideas
 accepted  at Wikipedia as the mainstream view, precisely because their
 views are in fact not yet mainstream. How could they expect it, for
 who at Wikipedia will be able to judge them?  For that they need other
 experts, and the world of peer-reviewed publication is the place for
 them.
 
 
 
 22067030 4 hours ago
 Wikipedia is presumably not authoritative so much as a place to start.
  The gatekeepers are often inexpert, and may be unaware of who the
 experts are, and at any rate are not maintaining a citable source.
 Wikipedia is the place to START research.  That means, for example, if
 there is a squabble over, say, climate change, then the squabble
 itself is a topic that should have 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
 

Heather Ford 
Ethnographer: Ushahidi / SwiftRiver
http://ushahidi.com | http://swiftly.org 
@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