[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Wikimedia-l] Language Showcase, May 2020

[Pine W]

This might be of interest to some Research and Education folks too.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


-- Forwarded message -
From: Amir E. Aharoni 
Date: Mon, May 25, 2020 at 7:22 PM
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Language Showcase, May 2020
To: wikimedia-l 


Hello,

This is an announcement about a new installment of the Language Showcase, a
series of presentations about various aspects of language diversity and its
connection to Wikimedia Projects.

This new installment will deal with the latest design research about the
upcoming section translation feature for Content Translation.

This session is going to be broadcast over Zoom, and a recording will be
published for later viewing. You can also participate in the conversation
on IRC or with us on the Zoom meeting.

Please read below for the event details, including local time, joining
links and do let us know if you have any questions.

Thank you!

Amir

== Details ==

# Event: Language Showcase #5

# When: May 27, 2020 (Wednesday) at 13:00 UTC (check local time
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20200527T1300 )

# Where:

Join Zoom Meeting
https://wikimedia.zoom.us/j/9708103

Meeting ID: 970 8103 

IRC - #wikimedia-office (on Freenode)

# Agenda:

The latest design research about the upcoming section translation feature
for Content Translation.

--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: wikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,


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

[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [libraries] CFP. Wikipedia and Academic Libraries: A Global Project

[Pine W]

Forwarding.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


-- Forwarded message -
From: Bridges, Laurie 
Date: Fri, May 8, 2020 at 9:10 AM
Subject: [libraries] CFP. Wikipedia and Academic Libraries: A Global Project
To: librar...@lists.wikimedia.org 




Call for Chapter Proposals – Due date June 1.



Project title: Wikipedia and Academic Libraries: A Global Project

Editors: Laurie M. Bridges, Raymond Pun, Roberto Arteaga

OA Publisher: Maize Books, an imprint of Michigan Publishing

License: CC BY 4.0

Email: wikiglobalproj...@gmail.com

Website: https://sites.google.com/view/globalwikipedia/



Proposals due: June 1, 2020
Notifications sent by: June 30, 2020
Send proposals as MS Word Document to: wikiglobalproj...@gmail.com
Questions: wikiglobalproj...@gmail.com





Project Information

This open access edited volume will be a collection of approximately
20 chapters authored by academic library workers and faculty, Library
and Information Science (LIS) faculty, and disciplinary faculty from
around the globe that highlights engagement with Wikimedia-related
projects and activities. This volume will be divided into two
sections, and possibly a third: The first section will include
real-world examples of activities and approaches to working with
Wikipedia. The second section will focus on the theories and
underlying concepts required for the development of pedagogical
approaches to teaching with and within Wikipedia. A third thematic
section may be added, depending on the breadth and number of
submissions, for example, a section related specifically to Wikidata.



Possible Topics

We are seeking chapters that include both practical and theoretical
work. Possible topics for chapters include (but are not limited to)
the following list:
Case studies of Wikipedia in information literacy instruction
Student researchers in Wikipedia
Collaboration between Wikimedia user groups and academic library staff
Wikipedia student clubs and their connection to libraries
Benefits of academic libraries partnering with Wikimedia projects
The role of Wikimedians/Wikipedians in Residence
Collaborating with university faculty in the classroom
Edit-a-thon pedagogy and practice
Critical Librarianship and Wikipedia
Wikipedia's fight against misinformation and "fake news"
Medical students and training
Use of Wikibooks in classes
Wikidata visualizations for education
Increasing and diversifying the audience for archival collections
through Wikipedia
Addressing gaps in Wikipedia, such as gender, LGBTQ+, racial,
linguistic, regional, etc.



Submission Information

Please send the following information to the editors by June 1, 2020:

A tentative title and abstract proposal: Up to 500 words in MS Word
describing what you would intend to submit for this book. In your
abstract, indicate which section of the book your proposal is aligned
to.

Please include links to any other publications you may have (i.e. an
article, a blog post, or anything else that best reflects your writing
style)

Author CVs or resumes (no more than 2 pages)





Information for Accepted Proposals

Final chapters will be approximately 3,000 words in length. All
citations must be APA 7th edition. This OA publication will be
licensed under a CC BY 4.0 license. After final chapters have been
edited and approved in English, authors will have the option of
providing a second-language translation of their chapter. (example:
English and Basque or English and Yoruba).This will be determined on a
case by case basis.



April 1 – June 1, 2020: Call for chapter proposals is distributed

June 30, 2020: Chapter proposals selected and authors notified

October 1, 2020: First draft of chapters due to editors

December 1, 2020: Second draft of chapters due to editors

January 1, 2021: Manuscript to publisher









__

Remote working hours (PST): M-Th, 8 am – 1 pm, 7 pm – 10 pm; F 9 am – 5 pm

Make an appointment (Zoom)

Keybase app: LaurieBridges



Laurie Bridges

Instruction and Outreach Librarian / Associate Professor

Oregon State University

OSU Libraries and Press

+1.541.737.8821



Library liaison to:

School of Writing, Literature, and Film

School of Arts and Communication

INTO OSU

___
Libraries mailing list
librar...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries

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

[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Talk-us] OSM Foundation’s Call for Microgrant Applications

[Pine W]

Forwarding.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


-- Forwarded message -
From: Clifford Snow 
Date: Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 8:06 PM
Subject: [Talk-us] OSM Foundation’s Call for Microgrant Applications
To: talk-us 


In case you missed this announcement, I'm reposting it on talk-us mailing list.


2020 will be the first year that the OSM Foundation operates the new
microgrants project. In the coming weeks, we hope to hear from you
about a bold, community-driven, and impactive OpenStreetMap project
idea that will benefit from a microgrant of up to 5000 euros. We
welcome a broad range of projects, with the minimum requirement being
a clear connection to OpenStreetMap.


What is a microgrant? In our case, it is a modest amount of funds
awarded to applicants in order to fund direct expenses of a project.
For an idea of successful projects, you can take a look at the
Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team’s 2019 microgrant awardees. Keep in
mind that the OSMF has a wider focus than the humanitarian sector,
spanning our global community, and welcomes applications with any
focus that relates to OpenStreetMap. We particularly encourage
applicants to consider the core values from the OSMF’s mission
statement and how any microgrant work can incorporate them.

The OSMF Microgrant Program focuses on simple grant proposals, and we
will swiftly decide on what to fund. Our goal is to avoid a
complicated and long application and decision process. You should
submit a brief and concise proposal, and we plan to quickly announce
the awardees.

We encourage submissions from individuals, groups, and organizations
who have a clear idea they want to pursue. Each project should be
completed within 12 months of the microgrant being awarded this
spring. Microgrants are open to all OSMF members, and can be submitted
in any language. If you are not yet a member of OSMF then you can
apply to join up until the time you submit a microgrant application,
and be eligible for an award. Please note there is a fee waiver
program that may allow you to join the OSMF at no cost.


In light of the ongoing health crisis regarding COVID19, we will not
be awarding microgrants for projects which require offline group
gatherings and in person meetings, although these ideas are certainly
valuable for future rounds.

Funding can be used for a variety of purposes. You may need tools and
supplies for mapping activity, funds for training materials,
technology expenses for a series of virtual mapathons, prizes for an
online coding, mapping, or writing contest, and many more examples.
Please embrace your own creativity and not feel limited by the range
of examples.


We encourage you to consult with your local OpenStreetMap community
when planning a microgrant application, and make sure you adhere to
community guidelines in the scope of the project. If accepted for a
microgrant, you will be responsible for reporting progress, signing a
grant agreement, and making sure to follow the detailed microgrant
rules. It is strongly suggested that your project uses the funding to
enable volunteer work to have a wider and stronger impact than it
would without funding.

The call for microgrants will open on April 19th, 2020 and we will
continue to accept applications through May 10th, 2020. In order to
submit,  visit the OSM Wiki page and click on “Start your application”
to enter the template. When this is complete, send a message to
microgrants at osmfoundation.org. We also encourage sharing your
application on osmf-talk when it is submitted. If you need help with
the submission process, please feel free to contact the Microgrants
Committee for help. If you don’t have enough time to prepare your plan
and application, please consider submitting it in a possible future
round of microgrants.


Once the submission period closes on May 10th, we invite the community
to review the complete list of submissions and provide feedback on the
wiki page. We also will accept feedback by email to microgrants at
osmfoundation.org and via osmf-talk.


Complete timeline:

April 19: call for microgrant applications opens

May 10: final date for submission (23:59 Pacific Time Zone, USA).

May 10-TBD: community feedback period

Late May: announcement of awards

For more details, see the complete rules and guidelines on the OSM
wiki and contact us at microgrants at osmfoundation.org with any
questions. This is the first time the OSMF is sponsoring such an
activity, and we look forward to learning together about how this
benefits our community and how to build a transparent, effective, and
inclusive microgrants program for everyone involved. We are grateful
for the opportunity to make funds available to the community and hope
to hear your ideas in the coming weeks.


Clifford

Member of the OSMF Microgrants Committee



--
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Talk-us mailing list
talk...@

Re: [Wiki-research-l] NEEDS COMMENT ASAP: Wikimedia Project Grant Proposal to address BIAS!

[Pine W]

Stuart,

As far as I know, grant applicants for WMF grants have never been
required to comment or share information regarding grant proposals
other than their own.

I think that in the past, WMF staff or grant review committee members
have solicited feedback for groups of grants.

I think that discussing solicitations for feedback regarding similar
grants is fine, but I request that the discussion be in a separate
thread. Soliciting feedback for groups of similar grants is a
different topic from the original topic of this thread.

Thanks,

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

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

[Wiki-research-l] In the press: Wikipedia, WikiProject Medicine, and misinformation

[Pine W]

FYI:

*https://www.wired.co.uk/article/wikipedia-coronavirus

*https://www.wired.com/story/how-wikipedia-prevents-spread-coronavirus-misinformation/

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Analytics] Wiki Workshop 2020 Announcement and Call for Papers

[Pine W]

Hi Leila,

Thank you for the updates. I have one small question. Will the
sessions which are available on Zoom also be recorded for later
viewing? On occasion, I watch or share presentations after they have
occurred.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 9:43 PM Leila Zia  wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> We have an update for you regarding Wiki Workshop 2020 [0] in light of
> the global health situation related to COVID-19.
>
> ==Summary==
> We have turned Wiki Workshop 2020 from an in-person event to a fully
> virtual event. This was not an easy decision for us to make. We know
> that past year attendees had gained a lot from the in-person set-up of
> the workshop. This being said, we're excited about the opportunity of
> organizing the workshop in a virtual set-up: this allows us to reduce
> our carbon foot-print and to allow more people to benefit from the
> workshop.
>
> For this year's workshop, we have decided to remove the registration
> cost which is removing one more barrier for participation. The
> workshop will take place, as originally planned, on April 21 2020. We
> have changed the time of the workshop from Taipei's local time to
> afternoon UTC until evening UTC. (Exact times will be announced in the
> coming couple of weeks.) We also want you to know that we're working
> hard to transform the workshop program to one that can be engaging in
> a virtual set-up. We are making good progress on this front, thanks to
> the immense flexibility of everyone who is working with us including
> our speakers and the authors of the papers. Look for more information
> in the coming weeks about how to register (for fee). If you want to
> know more, please read on! :)
>
> ==Where?==
> Wiki Workshop 2020 is going fully virtual. All talks, conversations,
> poster sessions, and one on one meetings are moved to a virtual
> environment.
>
> ==When?==
> April 21, 2020. We will start in the afternoon UTC and will end in the
> evening UTC. Note that this is a change from the original plan to
> start at 9:00 local time in Taipei. We expect to be able to finalize
> the start and end times of the workshop no later than 2020-03-27.
>
> ==How?==
> We are testing a few different video communication options and most
> likely we will go with Zoom [1]. There is no cost for downloading
> Zoom, and there is even a web browser version of it. However, some of
> the features we will use, such as breakout rooms, will work more
> smoothly if you download Zoom. We will send specific instructions for
> how to connect to those who register for the event.
>
> ==Registration==
> If you are not an author of an accepted archival paper, you can
> request to attend the event for free. We will send the details for how
> to submit your request by 2020-03-27. We will review all registration
> requests and will let you know if your registration is through.
>
> If you are an author of an accepted paper in the workshop, you will
> need to make sure at least one of the authors of your paper is
> registered for a 1-day (or more) in-person registration option offered
> by the Web Conference 2020 organizers or the 5-day virtual attendance
> registration for the conference. Link to register:
> https://www2020.thewebconf.org/registration . Please note that your
> paper will be removed from the proceedings of the conference if you do
> not take this step and we, as workshop organizers, don't have any
> means to fix that for you.
>
> ==Program==
> We traditionally had 5-6 invited talks (45-min each) in Wiki Workshop
> along with a Featured and Lightning Talk session by the authors of the
> accepted papers followed by a poster session. The duration of the
> workshop in the old set-up was 8 hours.
>
> We have no doubt that our traditional model for the program has to
> change for this year. We know that the dynamics of engagement in the
> virtual set-ups are different from the in-person set-ups. Here is what
> we're thinking about the high-level format, the details to be
> announced as we finalize the program in the coming few weeks:
> * Ice-breaker: unchanged.
> * Introductions: some way of making sure every person knows at least a
> few other of the participants. (We can do 15-sec intros if we have 10s
> of attendees, but we can't scale that if we have many more.)
> * Keynote plus Q&A
> * A conversation: an interview style back-and-forth between two people
> with room for questions at the end.
> * A conversation: a panel style of conversation. we have a couple of
> topics in mind for the panel and are sorting out details.
> * Featured Talks and Lightning Talks: 10-min or 3-min presentations by
> the authors of the accepted papers. This is unchanged from last year,
> except that after this session we would go to a poster session and
> this year we are working on a topic-based virtual poster session. The
> authors will receive more information about this.
> * The virtual poster session
> * Wrap-up
> * One on one meetings: Thi

Re: [Wiki-research-l] WMF Project Grant - CCCC Wikipedia Initiative

[Pine W]

Hello Melanie,

Thank you for sharing this here. Good luck with your proposal.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 4:05 PM Melanie Kill  wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I’m writing to ask for feedback and endorsements on a WMF project grant 
> proposal focused on developing support structures for academics editing 
> Wikipedia. The proposal is at 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/NCTE/_Wikipedia_Initiative_2020-21.
>
> Thanks in advance to those of you who can find a few minutes to consider the 
> proposal, share ideas to improve it on the talk page, and possibly add your 
> endorsement!
>
> All my best,
> Melanie
>
>
> <>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>
> Dr. Melanie Kill  (she / her)
> Assistant Professor of English
> Coordinator of the Rhetoric Minor
> University of Maryland
>
> Chair,  Wikipedia Initiative 
> 
>
> ___
> 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] NEEDS COMMENT ASAP: Wikimedia Project Grant Proposal to address BIAS!

[Pine W]

For what it's worth, I'm completely fine with people requesting
feedback on research-related grant proposals to WMF on Research-l,
including individual proposals. My only objection here is to the use
of all caps.

I'm speaking only for myself and others may have different opinions.

Thanks,
Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] NEEDS COMMENT ASAP: Wikimedia Project Grant Proposal to address BIAS!

[Pine W]

Hello,

I have a request, and this is only from my personal perspective and
not anything official. Please do not use all caps like this on
Wikimedia mailing lists. It comes across as SHOUTING, and what is
important or urgent for one person may not be important or urgent for
the dozens, hundreds, or thousands of other people on a Wikimedia
mailing list.

Thanks,

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 1:26 PM Jackie  wrote:
>
> Hi Friends,
>
> I submitted a Wikimedia project grant proposal for the 2020 round. I would
> really appreciate it if you could check it out and endorse it if you
> support the proposal.
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/JackieKoerner/Addressing_Implicit_Bias_on_Wikipedia
>
> The last day to share support is just days away. If addressing bias on
> Wikipedia is important to you now is the time to speak up!
>
> Thank you!
>
> Best,
>
> Jackie
>
> --
> Jackie Koerner, Ph.D.
> jackiekoerner.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] Modelling user behaviour on Wikipedia

[Pine W]

Hi Kiril,

I'd like to ask for further clarification on a couple of points.

Some people may be risk averse to performing certain actions, such as
moving pages, because they don't know what the rules are regarding
those actions, but page moves aren't necessarily harmful for the
environment. Does your research account for situations like this?

I'm still having difficulty understanding how the community may
benefit from the proposed research. Suppose that your research is
highly successful according to your definition of success. What will
the community gain from this?

Based on the use of the word "experiment", I'm assuming that you're
proposing an active intervention of some type in the community, and as
Jonathan said, it would be good to have more information regarding
what you have in mind.

Hi Jonathan,

My questions are largely based on Kiril's use of the word
"experiment", but I appreciate the request for clarification.

Regarding "Finally, we the members of this list (whether volunteers or
WMF staff) are not peer reviewers, do not speak for the Wikipedia
community, and are not empowered to approve or deny research
requests.", I partly agree and partly disagree. This list isn't a peer
review committee in the standard Western academic sense, but I think
that people who are planning to do interventions in the course of
their research in the Wikiverse would do well to consult this list for
advice. Also, the community may, by consensus, place various
restrictions on research projects, both broadly by policy and more
narrowly regarding specific experiments or specific researchers; we
probably would do that on wiki, but by seeking advice here,
researchers are likely to get useful advice regarding what to do and
what not to do. Also, some researchers may want to make requests for
WMF funding, WMF staff time, and/or access to users' private data, and
the people on this list might be good to consult before WMF grants any
of those, especially in novel or borderline situations.

Thanks,
Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

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

[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Wikitech-l] [Wikimedia Technical Talks] Data and Decision Science at Wikimedia with Kate Zimmerman, 26 February 2020 @ 6PM UTC

[Pine W]

Hello colleagues,

I'm forwarding this announcement to additional email lists.

Most public WMF meetings that are livestreamed on Youtube remain
available for replay after the meeting, and I'm guessing that this one
will be also.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


-- Forwarded message -
From: Srishti Sethi 
Date: Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 8:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] [Wikimedia Technical Talks] Data and
Decision Science at Wikimedia with Kate Zimmerman, 26 February 2020 @
6PM UTC
To: Wikimedia developers 


Hello folks,

Just a reminder that this talk will take place Wednesday 26 February 2020
at 6 PM UTC.

Hope to see you there!

Cheers,
Srishti
*Srishti Sethi*
Developer Advocate
Wikimedia Foundation 



On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 2:57 PM Sarah R  wrote:

> Hello Everyone,
>
> It's time for Wikimedia Tech Talks 2020 Episode 1! This talk will take
> place on *26 February 2020 at 6 PM UTC*.
>
> This month's talk will be in an interview format. You are invited to send
> questions ahead of time by replying to this email, or you can ask during Q
> & A section of the live talk by asking through IRC or the Youtube
> Livestream.
>
> Title: Data and Decision Science at Wikimedia
>
> Speaker:  Kate Zimmerman,  Head of Product Analytics at Wikimedia
>
> Summary:
>
> How do teams at the Foundation use data to inform decisions?
>
> Sarah R. Rodlund talks with Kate Zimmerman, Head of Product Analytics at
> Wikimedia, about what sorts of data her team uses and how insights from
> their analysis have shaped product decisions.
>
> Kate Zimmerman holds an MS in Psychology & Behavioral Decision Research
> from Carnegie Mellon University and has over 15 years of experience in
> quantitative and experimental methods. Before joining Wikimedia, she built
> data teams from scratch at ModCloth and SmugMug, evolving their data
> capabilities from basic reports to strategic analysis, automated
> dashboards, and advanced modeling.
>
> The link to the Youtube Livestream can be found here:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-CRsiwYM9w
>
> During the live talk, you are invited to join the discussion on IRC at
> #wikimedia-office
>
> You can watch past Tech Talks here:
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Tech_talks
>
> If you are interested in giving your own tech talk, you can learn more
> here:
>
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:Calendar/How_to_schedule_an_event#Tech_talks
>
> Note: This is a public talk. Feel free to distribute through appropriate
> email and social channels!
>
> Many kindnesses,
>
> Sarah R. Rodlund
> Technical Writer, Developer Advocacy
> srodl...@wikimedia.org
> ___
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-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] Modelling user behaviour on Wikipedia

[Pine W]

Hi Kiril,

Thank you for sharing your proposal.

I am concerned about the possibility of Wikipedia being used as a
laboratory for experiments that consume volunteers' time and/or
personal data, and don't benefit Wikipedia or its participants. Does
your research benefit the community, and if so, how? It sounds like
your research intends to develop a model of decision trees for
individual Wikipedians, and at first read I don't understand how the
individual research subjects or the community would benefit.

Sorry if this sounds defensive, but I hope that you understand why I'm asking.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 6:00 PM Kiril Simeonovski
 wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I am currently working on a research concerned with modelling user
> behaviour on Wikipedia. The idea is to design a field experiment over a
> random sample of Wikipedians in order to examine their risk preferences and
> define (dis)utilities that will be used in a utility-maximisation model.
>
> I have already submitted an abstract that got accepted for the
> biennial Foundations
> of Utility and Risk Conference 2020  and my
> future plans include presentation of the concept at other research
> conferences (including Wikimania 2020).
>
> You can visit the project page
> 
> of this research on Meta. Your questions and comments are welcome at any
> time. Thank you!
>
> Best regards,
> Kiril
> ___
> 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] [Analytics] Announcement - Mediawiki History Dumps

[Pine W]

I was thinking about the licensing issue some more. Apparently there
was a relevant United States court case regarding metadata several
years ago in the United States, but it's unclear to me from my brief
web search whether this holding would apply to metadata from every
nation. Also, I don't know if the underlying statues have changed
since the time of that ruling. I think that WMF Legal should be
consulted regarding the copyright status of the metadata. Also, I
think that the licensing of metadata should be explicitly addressed in
the Terms of Use or a similar document which is easily accessible to
all contributors to Wikimedia sites.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 12:17 AM Pine W  wrote:
>
> Hi Joseph,
>
> Thanks for this announcement.
>
> I am looking for license information regarding the dumps, and I'm not
> finding it in the pages that you linked at [1] or [2]. The license
> that applies to text on Wikimedia sites is often CC-BY-SA 3.0, and the
> WMF Terms of Use at https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use
> do not appear to provide any exception for metadata. In the absence of
> a specific license, I think that the CC-BY-SA or other relevant
> licenses would apply to the metadata, and that the licensing
> information should be prominently included on relevant pages and in
> the dumps themselves.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 4:28 PM Joseph Allemandou
>  wrote:
> >
> > Hi Analytics People,
> >
> > The Wikimedia Analytics Team is pleased to announce the release of the most 
> > complete dataset we have to date to analyze content and contributors 
> > metadata: Mediawiki History [1] [2].
> >
> > Data is in TSV format, released monthly around the 3rd of the month 
> > usually, and every new release contains the full history of metadata.
> >
> > The dataset contains an enhanced [3] and historified [4] version of user, 
> > page and revision metadata and serves as a base to Wiksitats API on edits, 
> > users and pages [5] [6].
> >
> > We hope you will have as much fun playing with the data as we have building 
> > it, and we're eager to hear from you [7], whether for issues, ideas or 
> > usage of the data.
> >
> > Analytically yours,
> >
> > --
> > Joseph Allemandou (joal) (he / him)
> > Sr Data Engineer
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> >
> > [1] https://dumps.wikimedia.org/other/mediawiki_history/readme.html
> > [2] 
> > https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Analytics/Data_Lake/Edits/Mediawiki_history_dumps
> > [3] Many pre-computed fields are present in the dataset, from edit-counts 
> > by user and page to reverts and reverted information, as well as time 
> > between events.
> > [4] As accurate as possible historical usernames and page-titles (as well 
> > as user-groups and blocks) is available in addition to current values, and 
> > are provided in a denormalized way to every event of the dataset.
> > [5] https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Analytics/AQS/Wikistats_2
> > [6] https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/
> > [7] 
> > https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/maniphest/task/edit/?title=Mediawiki%20History%20Dumps&projectPHIDs=Analytics-Wikistats,Analytics
> > ___
> > Analytics mailing list
> > analyt...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Analytics] Announcement - Mediawiki History Dumps

[Pine W]

Hi Joseph,

Thanks for this announcement.

I am looking for license information regarding the dumps, and I'm not
finding it in the pages that you linked at [1] or [2]. The license
that applies to text on Wikimedia sites is often CC-BY-SA 3.0, and the
WMF Terms of Use at https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use
do not appear to provide any exception for metadata. In the absence of
a specific license, I think that the CC-BY-SA or other relevant
licenses would apply to the metadata, and that the licensing
information should be prominently included on relevant pages and in
the dumps themselves.

What do you think?

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 4:28 PM Joseph Allemandou
 wrote:
>
> Hi Analytics People,
>
> The Wikimedia Analytics Team is pleased to announce the release of the most 
> complete dataset we have to date to analyze content and contributors 
> metadata: Mediawiki History [1] [2].
>
> Data is in TSV format, released monthly around the 3rd of the month usually, 
> and every new release contains the full history of metadata.
>
> The dataset contains an enhanced [3] and historified [4] version of user, 
> page and revision metadata and serves as a base to Wiksitats API on edits, 
> users and pages [5] [6].
>
> We hope you will have as much fun playing with the data as we have building 
> it, and we're eager to hear from you [7], whether for issues, ideas or usage 
> of the data.
>
> Analytically yours,
>
> --
> Joseph Allemandou (joal) (he / him)
> Sr Data Engineer
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> [1] https://dumps.wikimedia.org/other/mediawiki_history/readme.html
> [2] 
> https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Analytics/Data_Lake/Edits/Mediawiki_history_dumps
> [3] Many pre-computed fields are present in the dataset, from edit-counts by 
> user and page to reverts and reverted information, as well as time between 
> events.
> [4] As accurate as possible historical usernames and page-titles (as well as 
> user-groups and blocks) is available in addition to current values, and are 
> provided in a denormalized way to every event of the dataset.
> [5] https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Analytics/AQS/Wikistats_2
> [6] https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/
> [7] 
> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/maniphest/task/edit/?title=Mediawiki%20History%20Dumps&projectPHIDs=Analytics-Wikistats,Analytics
> ___
> Analytics mailing list
> analyt...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics

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

[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [OSM-talk] W3C Maps on the Web workshop

[Pine W]

Forwarding.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


-- Forwarded message -
From: Rushforth, Peter (NRCan/RNCan) 
Date: Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 9:46 PM
Subject: [OSM-talk] W3C Maps on the Web workshop
To: t...@openstreetmap.org 


Dear Open Street Map community,



I apologize if you are seeing this email for a second time. I sent it
originally to the talk-ca list, and I was advised that this list might
be more appropriate.



My name is Peter Rushforth, and I’m with the Canada Centre for Mapping
and Earth Observation, at Natural Resources Canada (a Canadian
government department).  We are planning a World Wide Web Consortium
(W3C) workshop on maps in the Web platform (specifically HTML),
together with the W3C and the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC).  The
workshop will be collocated with the OGC Technical Committee meeting,
June 15-17 2020 in Montreal, Quebec.



I am sending this email to see if Open Street Map (especially the Web
client development teams) might be interested in being invited to
participate (by presenting a short position paper, in person) in this
workshop on the concept of better integrating mapping into the Web
platform standards, and if so, how does Open Street Map see this.
Even if you believe that the Web platform standards are already good
enough for mapping, it might be worthwhile staking that out as a
position. If you are interested, though, we would certainly welcome
OSM to also be part of the program committee.



The objective of the workshop will be to start the conversation
between the geospatial (and geospatial standards) and Web platform
communities, about how Web standards could better serve the needs of
Web mapping and most especially users of Web maps and the Web in
general.



Some topics of potential interest include:



a native map viewer, similar to that provided for video content
standards for how such a map widget might integrate with map services and APIs
accessibility of browser maps
privacy of user location information
security of browser-based maps
Integration / relationship of maps and location with other browser
APIs, e.g. geo-video, geolocation API, forms, SVG
crawling, indexing and searching map information
standardized browser elements and APIs
CSS styling of maps and map features
Map feature creation / input forms
federated map services with linking - aka the Web



Mostly the agenda will be driven by position papers, and what
organizations like yours want to discuss.  If OSM is interested in
sending one or two people to present a position, please reply directly
to me, and I will ensure that you / they are invited.





Sincerely,

Peter





Peter Rushforth



Technology Advisor

Canada Centre for Mapping and Earth Observation

Natural Resources Canada / Government of Canada

peter.rushfo...@canada.ca / Tel: 613-759-7915



Conseiller technique

Centre canadien de cartographie et d’observation de la Terre

Ressources naturelles Canada / Gouvernement du Canada

peter.rushfo...@canada.ca / Tél: 613-759-7915



___
talk mailing list
t...@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Wikidata] New Wikimedia dataset for NLP research

[Pine W]

Forwarding.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


-- Forwarded message -
From: Gabriel Altay 
Date: Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 6:57 PM
Subject: [Wikidata] New Wikimedia dataset for NLP research
To: 


Hello Wikidata folks,

I would like to bring your attention to an open source dataset I've
been developing called the Kensho Derived Wikimedia Dataset (KDWD).
It's a cleaned English subset of Wikipedia/Wikidata with 2.3B tokens,
5.3M pages, 51M nodes, and 120M edges.  More details are available
here 
https://blog.kensho.com/announcing-the-kensho-derived-wikimedia-dataset-5d1197d72bcf

best,
-Gabriel
___
Wikidata mailing list
wikid...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

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

[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Wikidata] Knowledge Graph Conference 2020 - Workshops and Tutorials Announcement

[Pine W]

Forwarding.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


-- Forwarded message -
From: Violeta Ilik 
Date: Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 1:01 PM
Subject: [Wikidata] Knowledge Graph Conference 2020 - Workshops and
Tutorials Announcement
To: Discussion list for the Wikidata project. 


Dear Wikidata community,

The Knowledge Graph Conference organizing team is pleased to announce
the workshops and tutorials part of the KGC 2020 Program. They are
taking place on May 4 and 5 in Butler Library, Columbia University
Libraries in NYC.

Workshops are stand-alone sub events of the conference. They have
separate calls for papers and their own program and organizing
committee.

Tutorials are learning sessions including both lecture style and
hands-on sessions. Each tutorial will be for half a day unless
specified.

For more information about each workshop and tutorial please visit
this page: 
https://www.knowledgegraph.tech/the-knowledge-graph-conference-kgc/workshops-and-tutorials

Early Bird registration ends on February 15, 2020. To register please
visit this page:
https://www.knowledgegraph.tech/the-knowledge-graph-conference-kgc/register/


WORKSHOPS

KGC Workshop on Applied Knowledge Graph: Best industry/academic
practices, methods and challenges between representation and reasoning

Organizers:

Vivek Khetan, AI research specialist, Accenture Labs, SF

Colin Puri, R&D Principal - Accenture Labs

Lambert Hogenhout, Chief Analytics, Partnerships and Innovation, United Nations

Limit: 40 people

Date: May 4, 2020

Place: Room 203, Butler Library, Columbia University



Personal Health Knowledge Graphs (PHKG): Challenges and Opportunities

Organizers:

Ching-Hua Chen, PhD, Amar Das, MD PhD, Ying Ding, PhD, Deborah
McGuinness, PhD, Oshani Seneviratne, PhD, and Mohammed J Zaki, PhD

Limit: 40 people

Date: May 5, 2020

Place: Room 203, Butler Library, Columbia University



TUTORIALS


Virtualized Knowledge Graphs for Enterprise Applications

Presenter: Eric Little, PhD – CEO LeapAnalysis

Limit: 20 people

Date and time: May 4, 2020 8:30AM - 12:30PM

Place: Studio Butler,  Butler Library, Columbia University


Data discovery on a (free) hybrid BI/Search/Knowledge graph platform:
the Siren Community Edition hands on tutorial

Presenter: Giovanni Tummarello, Ph.D

Limit: 20 people

Date and time: May 4, 2020 8:30AM - 12:30PM

Place: Room 523  Butler Library, Columbia University



Building a Knowledge Graph from schema.org annotations

Presenters: Elias Kärle, Umutcan Simsek, and Dieter Fensel (STI
Innsbruck, University of Innsbruck)

Limit: 25 people

Date and time: May 4, 2020 1:30PM - 5:30PM

Place: Room 523  Butler Library, Columbia University


Designing and Building Enterprise Knowledge Graphs from Relational Databases

Presenter: Juan Sequeda, DataWorld

Limit: 25 people

Date and time: May 5, 2020 8:30AM - 12:30PM

Place: Room 523  Butler Library, Columbia University



Rapid Knowledge Graph development with GraphQL and RDF databases

Presenters: Vassil Momtchev, Ontotext

Limit: 25 people

Date and time: May 5, 2020 1:30PM - 5:30PM

Place: Room 523  Butler Library, Columbia University



Introduction to Logic Knowledge Graphs, Succinct Data Structures and
Delta Encoding for Modern Databases, and the Web Object Query Language

Presenter:  Dr. Gavin Mendel-Gleason and Cheukting Ho (DataChemist)

Limit: 20 people

Date and time: May 5, 2020 8:30AM - 12:30PM

Place: Room 306  Butler Library, Columbia University



Modeling Evolving Data in Graphs While Preserving Backward
Compatibility: The Power of RDF Quads

Presenter:  Souripriya Das, Matthew Perry, and Eugene I. Chong (Oracle)

Limit: 20 people

Date and time: May 5, 2020 1:30PM - 5:30PM

Place: Room 306  Butler Library, Columbia University


Violeta Ilik

KGC 2020 Workshops & Tutorials Chair

--
Violeta Ilik
___
Wikidata mailing list
wikid...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

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

[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Wikitech-l] PyCon Financial Assistance and Development Sprints Info

[Pine W]

Forwarding.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


-- Forwarded message -
From: Brooke Storm 
Date: Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 1:03 AM
Subject: [Wikitech-l] PyCon Financial Assistance and Development Sprints
Info
To: , Foundation Optional <
foundation-optio...@wikimedia.org>, 


Hello Folks!
For the Python enthusiasts on these lists, I’m signal boosting this message
with info on PyCon dev sprints and financial assistance for the conference
from a former Wikimedia colleague.
I plan to attend PyCon this year and am also hoping to figure out setting
up a development sprint around some Wikimedia Cloud Services and Toolforge
code.

Brooke Storm
SRE
Wikimedia Cloud Services
bst...@wikimedia.org 
IRC: bstorm_

- Forwarded message 


I wanted to mention - feel free to pass this on publicly and in personal
invitations - that PyCon North America, mid-April in Pennsylvania,
offers financial assistance to people who would like to attend:

https://us.pycon.org/2020/financial-assistance/ <
https://us.pycon.org/2020/financial-assistance/>

The deadline for requesting financial assistance is 31 January.

PyCon loves to cross-pollinate with other free and open source
movements, and I know there are many Python developers in Wikimedia
tech. If Wikimedians want to use the April 20-23 in-person sprints

https://us.pycon.org/2020/events/sprints/ <
https://us.pycon.org/2020/events/sprints/> (will be editable soon)

to work on Wikimedia-related Python tools together, that would be cool!

Best wishes.

--
Sumana Harihareswara
Changeset Consulting
https://changeset.nyc 

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
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=zxxO
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Power law and contributions:

[Pine W]

Hi Jan,

I think that we may have given you a lot more than you had in mind when you
asked your question. I'm aware that you were thinking of "power law" in a
way that can be very different than "power dynamics", but I have the latter
more on my mind, partially because of recent discussions on Wikimedia-l
related to strategy.

I remain interested in knowing what the goal of your research is.

I'll be busy with non-Wikimedia activities for the next few days, but I'll
try to get back to the Wikiverse by this Saturday. If you don't hear back
from me after about two weeks then please feel free to email me off list if
you'd like me to follow up. In the meantime, Kerry and other capable people
may be able to help with any further questions regarding your research
interests.

Best wishes,

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Power law and contributions:

[Pine W]

Hi Jan,

There are many issues involved in power dynamics. I would prefer to look at
this issue from a wide angle perspective.

How do you define "community health"?

Are the people who have power competent and focused on public service, are
they incompetent and selfish, or some other combination of those factors?

There are also powerful non-community forces such as paid editors who have
conflicts of interest, nations which make legal and political decisions
that affect the community, trolls, political activists, WMF, and more.
These can have significant effects for better and for worse. I suggest that
you take these into your account in analyzing power dynamics.

I also suggest taking into account that even if someone is high on the
power curve, that doesn't mean that they are necessarily having a good time
at others' expense. I think that some people such as English Wikipedia
functionaries are sometimes under a lot of stress, and are subject to
criticism and scrutiny from many directions. Also, there may be good
reasons for not distributing power more widely in some cases, such as with
the Checkuser tool.

I worry that someday the community will be overwhelmed by organizations
and/or nations which want to alter Wikimedia content for selfish reasons
and who can afford to hire or manipulate large numbers of people into doing
what they want.

What is the goal of your research?

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 10:31 AM Jan Dittrich 
wrote:

> Hello Researchers,
>
> Contribution patterns in online communities follow a power distribution
> which is known as the 1% rule [1], as Wikipedia told me.
>
> However, the steepness of the distribution can be more or less strong: 50%
> of your edits could be contributed by 2% or by 0.002%, the latter showing a
> stronger imbalance.
>
> I wonder if there are any estimates/rules-of-thumb of what imbalance is
> problematic when seen from the perspective of community health.
>
> I also wonder if there is research on how technology contributes to such
> imbalances and how it might be mitigated – e.g training, user-friendliness,
> documentation…
> (based on my assumption that a steep curve is less desirable, since the
> power is more  concentrated, the system more fragile and the redistribution
> of power more constrained)
>
> Jan
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_(Internet_culture)
>
> --
> Jan Dittrich
> UX Design/ Research
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
> https://wikimedia.de
>
> Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der Menschheit
> teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
> https://spenden.wikimedia.de
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
> der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
> Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Analytics] Introducing statistics for media files

[Pine W]

Also forwarding to Research-l and Wikitech-l.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


-- Forwarded message -
From: Francisco Dans 
Date: Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 5:52 PM
Subject: [Analytics] Introducing statistics for media files
To: A mailing list for the Analytics Team at WMF and everybody who has an
interest in Wikipedia and analytics. 


Hi everybody,

Just in time for the holidays, we're announcing the addition of Media
Requests to our metrics catalog. Over the last few months we've been
working on a dataset offering request numbers for every single image,
audio, video and document in the Wiki universe, since 2015.

This means we have 3 new metrics available in the Analytics Query Service:

   - Media requests per referrer: e.g. how many images, audio, videos...
   have been accessed from English Wikipedia in the last month? *73 billion
   for November
   
.*
   - Media requests per file: e.g. how many hits did this cool painting
   
   get in November? The answer is 483,791 hits
   

   .
   - Top files by media requests: e.g. what was the most popular video
   yesterday, December 22nd? Fred Rogers testifying before the Senate
   Subcommittee on Communications
   
.
   Fun! You can check out the top 1000 media files for any month or day, for
   any media type.

Media requests is, in terms of absolute numbers, a huge dataset, so the per
file and top metrics are still being loaded with data all the way to 2015.
We expect this loading to finish in mid January.

You can read more about this in Wikitech
. As usual
if you have any questions about the dataset or the new metrics please send
them our way here on the list or via Phabricator.

Happy holidays!
Francisco + the A team
-- 
*Francisco Dans (él, he, 彼)*
Software Engineer, Analytics Team
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Analytics mailing list
analyt...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [AI] The WebConf (WWW 2020) Call for Papers (Demo Track)

[Pine W]

Forwarding an announcement. For what it's worth, WMF is listed as a sponsor
of the 2019 conference, and multiple conference tracks appear to be
relevant to Wikiverse activities. However, announcements which include
lofty adjectives such as "visionary" often give me pause due to the risk of
over-promising and under-delivering. Your views may vary.

Regards,
Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


-- Forwarded message -
From: Jui-Yi Tsai 
Date: Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 2:42 AM
Subject: [AI] The WebConf (WWW 2020) Call for Papers (Demo Track)
To: 


*The WebConf (WWW) Call for Papers: Demo Track*
 April 20-24, 2020
Taipei, Taiwan
  https://www2020.thewebconf.org/

*Important Dates*
• Submission deadline: January 06, 2020
• Notification: February 10, 2020

For almost three decades, the Web Conference series has been the premier
venue for researchers, academics, businesses and standards bodies to come
together and discuss latest updates and the future of the Web. The
Demonstration Track of the Web Conference has become an important venue for
sharing cutting-edge and exciting web-based prototype systems with
significant research and development efforts. The Demonstrations Track
allows researchers and practitioners to demonstrate first-hand visionary
systems with innovative features and functionalities in a dedicated
session. Submissions must be based on an implemented and tested system that
pursues one or more innovative ideas in the interest areas of the
conference.

*Topics include (but are not limited to)*
● Health on the Web
● Behavioral analysis and personalization
● Crowdsourcing systems and social media
● Bio-feedback and emotional computation
● New human-computer interfaces
● Internet economics, monetization, and online markets
● Pervasive Web and mobility
● Security, privacy, and trust
● Semantics and knowledge
● Semantic Web, content analysis, and Web mining
● Social networks, social analysis, and computational social science
● Web infrastructure: datacenters, cloud computing, and systems
● User modeling, personalization, and experience
● Mobile, ubiquitous, ambient, and pervasive computation, Web of Things
● Web science, Web search, and Web systems

Demonstrations are encouraged from academic researchers, from industrial
practitioners with prototypes or in-production deployments, as well as from
any W3C-related activities to interact while exploring the latest
techniques for managing web information and knowledge. Software (including
games or learning platforms) and hardware demos will be considered equally,
provided they show innovative use of Web-based techniques. Each submission
must make clear which aspects of the system will be demonstrated, and how.
What exactly will the audience experience? What are the interesting
scenarios to motivate the demonstration? They should strive to state the
significance of the contribution to Web technology or applications. In
other words, submissions should describe the intended audience, point out
the innovative aspects of the system being demonstrated, and explain how
those aspects contribute to the state of the art in the Web and information
technology. Submissions will be peer-reviewed by members of the track
program committee, who will judge the originality, significance, quality,
and clarity of each submission.

*Submission Guidelines*
Demonstration Track submissions must be formatted according to the ACM SIG
Proceedings Template and are limited to four pages (including references
and appendices). It is the authors’ responsibility to ensure that
submissions adhere strictly to the required format. The format cannot be
modified with the objective of squeezing in more material. Submissions that
do not comply with the formatting guidelines will be rejected without
review.

Each demonstration track submission should contain an introduction, brief
description, screenshots, value and contribution. Submissions should also
indicate how the demonstration will be demonstrated and the hardware
requirements (for the organizers).

Submissions must be double-blinded. Submissions must be in PDF and must be
made through the EasyChair system (Demonstrations Track):

https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=www2020

At least one author of each accepted demonstration paper must register for
the conference and attend in person to demonstrate the system during the
demonstration sessions.

To better identify the value of demonstrations, as well as to reach out to
external audiences, we also encourage authors to submit a pointer to a
screencast, using web-accessible platforms such as Vimeo or YouTube. The
maximum duration of screencasts is 10 minutes. We also highly encourage any
external material related to the demo (e.g., shared code on GitHub).

*Track Co-chairs*
Hsu-Chun Hsiao (National Taiwan University)
De-Nian Yang (Academia Sinica)
Email: demos2...@thewebconf.org
___
AI mailing list
a...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Wikidata] Call for Contributions to WikiCite Satellite Cologne 2020

[Pine W]

Forwarding.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


-- Forwarded message -
From: Jakob Voß 
Date: Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 1:14 PM
Subject: [Wikidata] Call for Contributions to WikiCite Satellite Cologne
2020
To: Discussion list for the Wikidata project 


Dear Wikidata-Community!

We are happy to announce the WikiCite Satellite Cologne 2020 and looking
forward to your contributions. The event will take place at May 6th -
8th 2020 at GESIS in Cologne, organized together with ZB MED and FH
Köln. The event aims to connect local library institutions and academic
researchers with the WikiCite community in their shared interest in an
open infrastructure about open citations and linked bibliographic data
for research and education. See https://w.wiki/9jj for details!

Submission deadline for contributions is February 16th 2020. The
conference will contain different forms of contributions. Please specify
the format and how much time you are going to need. We especially
welcome topics such as (but not limited to):

- use of bibliographic data in Wikibase and Wikimedia projects
- applications and tools to process, analyze and visualize scientific
information
- strategies to enhance the bibliographic information on large scale
- bibliometric analyses and quantitative science studies
- ethical and social aspects of data collection and analysis
- open citations and open bibliographic data

Please suggest your contribution with a short abstract (max. 500 words),
contact information, preferred language (German or English) and its
type, which has to be one of the following options:

- hands-on workshops: practical tutorials with up to 30 participants
each (up to 150 minutes), e.g. introduction to Wikidata or other
Wikimedia projects, introduction to bibliometrics, how-to and
best-practice guides around tools
- talks: traditional presentations (10-30 minutes including questions)
- discussions: self-organized barcamp-like open discussion with up to 30
participants (up to 60 minutes)
- demos: interactive demo of a tool or prototype (10-15 minutes)
- posters: visually appealing and informative description of a topic (0
minutes) to be shown at the conference site. It’s also possible to
provide a poster without physically participating, please indicate in
your submission

All participants can also give spontaneous lightning talks.

Contributions can be submitted openly in the Wikidata wiki. Both English
and German contributions will be accepted. Please create an account (any
Wikimedia project such as Wikipedia will do) and submit your
contribution via the event page (https://w.wiki/9jj#Metadata). The
submission form opens a template to publish your submission with full
title and additional information.

Looking forward to seeing you!
Jakob Voß

-- 
Jakob Voß 
Verbundzentrale des GBV (VZG) / Common Library Network
Platz der Goettinger Sieben 1, 37073 Göttingen, Germany
+49 (0)551 39-31031, http://www.gbv.de/

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Wikidata] Useful resources for Scholia

[Pine W]

This looks interesting. Thanks for sharing. I'm cross-posting this to
Research-l.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 10:10 PM Houcemeddine A. Turki <
turkiabdelwa...@hotmail.fr> wrote:

> Dear all,
> I thank you for your efforts. I invite you to use several useful resources
> available in https://shubhanshu.com/awesome-scholarly-data-analysis/ to
> enrich Scholia project.
> Yours Sincerely,
> Houcemeddine Turki (he/him)
> Medical Student, Faculty of Medicine of Sfax, University of Sfax, Tunisia
> Undergraduate Researcher, UR12SP36
> GLAM and Education Coordinator, Wikimedia TN User Group
> Member, WikiResearch Tunisia
> Member, Wiki Project Med
> Member, WikiIndaba Steering Committee
> Member, Wikimedia and Library User Group Steering Committee
> Co-Founder, WikiLingua Maghreb
> Founder, TunSci
> 
> +21629499418
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> wikid...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Asking for your input on Community Values to guide ORES development

[Pine W]

Thank you very much for sharing that.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Wikidata] Scaling Wikidata Query Service

[Pine W]

Forwarding in case this is of interest.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


-- Forwarded message -
From: Guillaume Lederrey 
Date: Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 7:33 PM
Subject: [Wikidata] Scaling Wikidata Query Service
To: Discussion list for the Wikidata project. 


Hello all!

There has been a number of concerns raised about the performance and
scaling of Wikdata Query Service. We share those concerns and we are
doing our best to address them. Here is some info about what is going
on:

In an ideal world, WDQS should:

* scale in terms of data size
* scale in terms of number of edits
* have low update latency
* expose a SPARQL endpoint for queries
* allow anyone to run any queries on the public WDQS endpoint
* provide great query performance
* provide a high level of availability

Scaling graph databases is a "known hard problem", and we are reaching
a scale where there are no obvious easy solutions to address all the
above constraints. At this point, just "throwing hardware at the
problem" is not an option anymore. We need to go deeper into the
details and potentially make major changes to the current architecture.
Some scaling considerations are discussed in [1]. This is going to take
time.

Reasonably, addressing all of the above constraints is unlikely to
ever happen. Some of the constraints are non negotiable: if we can't
keep up with Wikidata in term of data size or number of edits, it does
not make sense to address query performance. On some constraints, we
will probably need to compromise.

For example, the update process is asynchronous. It is by nature
expected to lag. In the best case, this lag is measured in minutes,
but can climb to hours occasionally. This is a case of prioritizing
stability and correctness (ingesting all edits) over update latency.
And while we can work to reduce the maximum latency, this will still
be an asynchronous process and needs to be considered as such.

We currently have one Blazegraph expert working with us to address a
number of performance and stability issues. We
are planning to hire an additional engineer to help us support the
service in the long term. You can follow our current work in phabricator
[2].

If anyone has experience with scaling large graph databases, please
reach out to us, we're always happy to share ideas!

Thanks all for your patience!

   Guillaume

[1]
https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikidata_query_service/ScalingStrategy
[2] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/project/view/1239/

-- 
Guillaume Lederrey
Engineering Manager, Search Platform
Wikimedia Foundation
UTC+2 / CEST

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

[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [OpenAccess] Fwd: Job Posting: Opportunity at the NIH Library: Data Services Informationist

[Pine W]

Forwarding a job announcement that may be of interest to some list
subscribers. The announced pay range is $69,581 to $128,920 per year.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


-- Forwarded message -
From: Federico Leva (Nemo) 
Date: Fri, May 24, 2019 at 9:55 PM
Subject: [OpenAccess] Fwd: Job Posting: Opportunity at the NIH Library:
Data Services Informationist
To: Wikimedia & Libraries , Open Access
discussions 


This looks like something where an experienced wikimedian with interest
in libraries and/or open access could fit.

Federico

  Messaggio inoltrato 
Oggetto: [SCHOLCOMM] Job Posting: Opportunity at the NIH Library: Data
Services Informationist
Data: Thu, 23 May 2019 13:43:48 +
Mittente: "Belter, Christopher (NIH/OD/ORS) [E]"

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Library is pleased to announce
an exciting employment opportunity for an exceptional candidate to serve
as an informationist and lead the Library’s data services program.  If
you have experience providing information and data services in a
biomedical library setting and want to play a significant role in a
dynamic organization, then consider joining the NIH Library team. This
is a GS-11/12/13, Technical Information Specialist position.  For more
information, visit https://www.nihlibrary.nih.gov/services/data.

We expect to announce this vacancy on USAJOBS.gov on May 28, 2019, and
the application will be open for 10 calendar days.  The application
period reflects the NIH’s effort to hire talented people quickly.  You
may preview the draft announcements now at
https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/534055900/ and
https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/534056100/ but you will not
be able to apply until May 28th.

We encourage you to create or update your USAJOBS.gov account and
profile now so you will be ready to apply when this job is announced.
As part of the application process, it may be necessary to upload copies
of degree transcripts. We also encourage you to set up email
notifications for job announcements. Please visit the USAJOBS.gov Help
Center at https://www.usajobs.gov/Help/faq/ for more information.

Thank you for helping spread the word to others who may be interested.

Major responsibilities of the position are as follows.

Responsibilities
•   Serves as lead and subject matter expert for the Library’s data
services program
•   Assesses NIH researchers’ training needs in the areas of data
management, data visualization, data analysis, and R and Python programming
•   Develops and delivers graduate-level training to meet identified
needs
•   Provides one-on-one advice and consultations in the areas of data
science
•   Assists NIH researchers in using the NIH Library’s data sciences
workstation, which offers a suite of tools for data analysis,
processing, and visualization for a variety of different types of data
•   Consults and collaborates with NIH staff to aid them in locating,
accessing, identifying, and managing information
•   Performs outreach across NIH and HHS to understand users’
information
needs and markets library services and resources that meet those needs

Contact Margaret McGhee at margaret.mcg...@nih.gov or (301) 451-9335 for
more information.


Chris Belter, MLS

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

[Wiki-research-l] Research showcase for May

[Pine W]

Hello Research-l,

Does anyone know whether there will be a Wikimedia Research Showcase this
month? I think that these are usually scheduled for 3rd Wednesdays.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Sampling new editors in English Wikipedia

[Pine W]

Hi Haifeng,

Some users will state on user pages that an account is an alternate
account. However, this practice is not followed by everyone, and those who
do follow this practice aren't required to so in a uniform way.

Alternate accounts which are not labeled as such, and which are used for
illegitimate purposes such as double voting, are an ongoing problem. You
might be interested in the English Wikipedia page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry.

Alternate accounts can also be used for legitimate purposes, such as people
who have one account for their professional or academic activities and
another account for their personal use.

Good luck with your project.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 1:30 PM Haifeng Zhang 
wrote:

> Stuart,
>
> I'm building an agent-based simulation of Wikipedia collaboration.
>
> I would like my model to be empirically grounded, so I need to collect
> data for new editors.
>
> Alternative accounts can be an issue, but I wonder is there a way to
> identify editors who have multiple account?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Haifeng Zhang
>
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Sampling new editors in English Wikipedia

[Pine W]

Leila, can we discuss this off list?

Thanks,

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 9:29 PM Leila Zia  wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 1:56 PM Pine W  wrote:
> >
> > Hi Leila, I believe that I asked for more information regarding Heifeng's
> > work.
>
> You stated
>
> "However, if you're planning to send surveys or messages to them,
> sending them barnstars, or otherwise manipulating their on-wiki
> experience, that would be problematic."
>
> and I'm suggesting that you enter from a question angle, please.
>

> > There has been discussion on English Wikipedia regarding volunteers
> > being unhappy with the interventions or proposed interventions of
> > researchers. I think that asking about the nature of Haifeng's research
> is
> > legitimate, and I tried to provide some examples of possible types of
> > research.
>
> Please check your email. There was no question there in the part
> related to this discussion. Also, even if there was a question posed,
> I highly recommend you enter from a different angle to these
> conversations. There are many reasons someone may need the sampled
> data of newcomers. A few examples: they may want to test the
> assumption whether the arrivals (registrations) to a specific
> Wikipedia language follow a Poisson process or not, they may want to
> learn about the distribution of topics editors in a given language
> edit in the first 24 hours after they open the account, they may want
> to build a prediction model to predict whether the editor will make
> the n-th edit or not given that they have started at time x, they may
> want to see whether external events have strong correlations with
> account registration and Wikipedia activity, they may want to see if
> the change to HTTPS had impact on registrations, etc. There are
> literally millions of questions people may ask (given that the data is
> available to them) with respect to Wikipedia. The answer to some of
> them may require interaction with Wikipedia editors, the answer to
> some may not. So the safest bet to start having a fruitful
> conversation is to ask: can you tell us more about what you're trying
> to do?
>
> > I'm trying to protect the community from problematic
> > interventions, while also welcoming research that is accepted by the
> > community.
>
> I understand and I'm looking forward to having conversations with you
> all about how to achieve that.
>
> Best,
> 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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Sampling new editors in English Wikipedia

[Pine W]

Hi Haifeng, thanks for the information. I think that your idea of looking
in the dumps makes sense. Am I understanding correctly that you would like
advice regarding how to do that in the most efficient way?

Hi Leila, I believe that I asked for more information regarding Heifeng's
work. There has been discussion on English Wikipedia regarding volunteers
being unhappy with the interventions or proposed interventions of
researchers. I think that asking about the nature of Haifeng's research is
legitimate, and I tried to provide some examples of possible types of
research. I'm trying to protect the community from problematic
interventions, while also welcoming research that is accepted by the
community.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 8:00 PM Haifeng Zhang 
wrote:

> Pine and Stuart,
>
> I meant extracting a random sample of new editors (month by month) from
> Wikipedia edit history.
>
> It is not about survey of new editors, but still thanks for your
> suggestions.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Haifeng Zhang
>
> Postdoctoral Research Fellow
> Human-Computer Interaction Institute
> Carnegie Mellon University
> 
> From: Wiki-research-l  on
> behalf of Stuart A. Yeates 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2019 3:46:19 PM
> To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Sampling new editors in English Wikipedia
>
> There are a number of new-editor-heavy noticeboards. I would suggest
> posting an invite there to your survey (or whatever) If you ask for
> editor's usernames you can filter out those who don't meet your
> definition of 'new'
>
> I'm thinking of places like:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse and
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk
>
> cheers
> stuart
>
>
> --
> ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
>
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 08:37, Leila Zia  wrote:
> >
> > Hi Pine,
> >
> > Haifeng has a simple question about how to sample editors other than
> > via dumps. It would be great if someone who knows the answer to help
> > them to move forward.
> >
> > If you are interested to learn more about their research, instead of
> > answering their question, my recommendation would be to start the
> > conversation with: "can you tell us more about your research?" kind of
> > question. I find the current way of communication very speculative,
> > and that is not good for making a vibrant research community that can
> > help us address some of our big questions.
> >
> > Best,
> > Leila
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 12:08 PM Pine W  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi, can you expand on what you mean by "sample"? If you're referring to
> > > analyzing users' edit histories then that should be fine. However, if
> > > you're planning to send surveys or messages to them, sending them
> > > barnstars, or otherwise manipulating their on-wiki experience, that
> would
> > > be problematic.
> > >
> > > Pine
> > > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 6:19 PM Haifeng Zhang  >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi folks,
> > > >
> > > > My work needs to randomly sample new editors in each month, e.g., 100
> > > > editors per month.
> > > >
> > > > Do any of you have good suggestions for how to do this efficiently?
> > > >
> > > > I could think of using the dump files, but wonder are there other
> options?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Haifeng Zhang
> > > > ___
> > > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > > > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > > >
> > > ___
> > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >
> > ___
> > 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] Sampling new editors in English Wikipedia

[Pine W]

Hi, can you expand on what you mean by "sample"? If you're referring to
analyzing users' edit histories then that should be fine. However, if
you're planning to send surveys or messages to them, sending them
barnstars, or otherwise manipulating their on-wiki experience, that would
be problematic.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 6:19 PM Haifeng Zhang 
wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> My work needs to randomly sample new editors in each month, e.g., 100
> editors per month.
>
> Do any of you have good suggestions for how to do this efficiently?
>
> I could think of using the dump files, but wonder are there other options?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Haifeng Zhang
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Wikimedia-l] How diverse are your readers?

[Pine W]

Forwarding.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


-- Forwarded message -
From: Leila Zia 
Date: Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 9:13 PM
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] How diverse are your readers?
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 


Hi all,

As I mentioned in an earlier thread [1], we will be running reader
surveys across a number of Wikipedia languages to learn about the
reader needs and motivations in these languages as well as some of
their demographic information (and perhaps the correlations between
demographics and user motivations and characteristics).

If your language community is interested to have statistics on the
distribution of reader gender, age, education, native language, and
geographic region (rural/urban) in your language (and depending on how
much data we collect in your language, perhaps more insights), this is
your chance to indicate interest at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reader_Behaviour/Demographics_and_Wikipedia_use_cases#Interested_languages

I initially communicated 2019-02-15 as the deadline to sign up. Since
then, we have run a pilot test on enwiki and we are investigating some
of the results to see if any changes in the survey questions are
needed. You have now time until 2019-03-15 to indicate interest.

As always: this call is primarily a service to your language
community. If you like it, take action on it. If you don't, no action
is needed. :)

Best,
Leila

[1]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-February/091762.html

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: wikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

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

[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [AI] Extended call for Workshops/Tutorials at CAIP 2019 in Salerno, Italy

[Pine W]

Forwarding to additional lists. I believe that in the past there has been
consideration of using automated image recognition to categorize images on
Commons.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


-- Forwarded message -
From: caip2...@unisa.it 
Date: Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 6:58 AM
Subject: [AI] Extended call for Workshops/Tutorials at CAIP 2019 in
Salerno, Italy
To: 


The CAIP2019 Organizing Committee invites proposals for workshops and
tutorials in conjunction with the 18th International Conference on Computer
Analysis of Images and Patterns. The workshops and tutorials will be held
as side events of the main conference.

*Proposals for Workshop*

The CAIP2019 workshops will provide forums where participants will have
opportunities to discuss technical topics and actively share ideas. The
topics of the workshops should be at the frontiers of academic research or
important applications in the domain of computer vision and pattern
recognition. Each proposal will be assessed for its scientific content,
structure and relevance. Cogently, good proposals would encourage
discussion and interaction between the participants, achievable in a
several ways, e.g., through presentations of submitted work, panel
discussions and hands-on sessions.

Download here the Call for Workshops



*Proposals For Tutorials*

The CAIP 2019 Organizing Committee invites proposals for tutorials to be
held as side events of the main conference in Salerno, Italy. Tutorials
should serve one or more of the following objectives:

   -

   Introduce students and newcomers to major topics of CAIP research
   -

   Provide instruction on established practices and methodologies
   -

   Survey a mature area of CAIP research and/or practice
   -

   Motivate and explain a CAIP topic of emerging importance
   -

   Introduce expert non-specialists to a CAIP research area

Proposals should contain the following information:

   -

   The title and a brief description of the tutorial


   -

   A detailed outline of the tutorial, including preferred length of
   tutorial: either 3 hours (half day) or 6 hours (full day). If it is a
   full-day tutorial, please give a brief justification
   -

   Characterization of the potential target audience for the tutorial,
   including prerequisite knowledge and estimated number of attendees
   -

   A description of why the tutorial topic would be of interest to a
   substantial part of the CAIP audience
   -

   A brief resume of the presenter(s), which should include name, title,
   affiliation, e-mail address, background in the tutorial area, example of
   work in the area (e.g. publications and/or industrial work).

Download here the Call for Tutorials



*Submission*

Proposals should be submitted by electronic mail to the CAIP Organizing
Committee (caip2...@unisa.it)


*Important Dates*

Deadline for workshop proposal:
*March 11, 2019 *Notification of Acceptance: *March 15, 2019*


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

[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Wikimedia-l] Project Grants program will fund 20 community-led projects

[Pine W]

Forwarding in case people are interested in seeing what was funded.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


-- Forwarded message -
From: Chris "Jethro" Schilling 
Date: Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 9:06 PM
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Project Grants program will fund 20 community-led
projects
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 


Hi folks,

In the latest round of Project Grants, the committee has recommended 20
projects for a total of approximately $678,666 USD in funding.  We received
42 proposals for review, the largest round of proposals we’ve received in a
single round. Please join me in congratulating the applicants! I’d also
like to express my thanks to all applicants this round for their hard work
and engagement with their proposals, and to the Project Grants Committee
for their careful diligence in reviewing and providing crucial feedback
during this round. Without further ado, here’s what we’re funding:[1]

==Software: five projects funded==* Commons Android app v3: This third
version of the Commons mobile uploader app aims to increase app stability,
improve a recommendations feature for nearby places, maintain a limited
connectivity mode, and provide better outreach to underrepresented
communities. [2]

* Scribe: Scribe is an editing tool to support underserved Wikipedia
editors, helping them to plan the structure of their new articles and to
find references in their language.[3]

* Culture Gap Monthly Monitoring: The Wikipedia Cultural Diversity
Observatory (WCDO) proposes a set of solutions to regularly assist
communities and individual editors to increase the cultural diversity in
their language editions’ content.[4].

* GlobalFactSyncRE: GlobalFactSyncRE will extract all infobox facts and
their references to produce a tool for Wikipedia editors that detects and
displays differences across infobox facts in an intelligent way to help
sync infoboxes between languages and/or Wikidata. The extracted references
will also be used to enhance Wikidata.[5]

* Wikidata & ETL: This project aims at improving management and increasing
automation of processes loading data into Wikidata, and proposes a tool as
a platform for creation of repeatable processes for bulk loading data into
Wikidata and other Wikibase instances from various data sources.[6]

==Online organizing: four projects funded==* Wiki Loves Monuments
international team/2019 coordination: The international coordination team
for Wiki Loves Monuments (WLM) [7] proposes to strengthen the foundation
for healthy and sustainable WLM competitions across the world. In this
grant, the team will focus considerable effort on increasing the
sustainability of these events by addressing known issues around developing
best practices, resourcing local teams to run successful events, and
adapting to mobile engagement.[8]

* CEE Spring 2019: This annual international article writing contest
generates
content from every country and region in Central and Eastern Europe on 30+
Wikipedias.  CEE Spring’s remarkable community spirit plays a central role
in fostering a thriving, collaborative volunteer base in the region. The
grant will continue incentivizing content creation focused on similar
themes from last year, including closing the gender gap, and expanding
minority language Wikipedias, and showcasing the cultural heritage of
Central and Eastern Europe. [9]

* WM HU/Editor retention program: This grant will fund the editor retention
program in the Hungarian Wikipedia. The project helps the Hungarian
Wikipedia community in decreasing the negative experiences and
strengthening the positive experiences of the contributors; improving the
community atmosphere and strengthening the community cohesion, the
Wikipedia identity, the sense of mission and pride in Wikipedia.[10]

* VisibleWikiWomen2019: Whose Knowledge?, in partnership with Wikimedians
and women’s and feminist organizations around the world, is organizing a
campaign to add more diverse and quality images of women to Commons and
Wikipedia throughout March 2019 to celebrate International Women’s Month.
This year, the organization plans to take what they have learned from 2018
#VisibleWikiWomen and grow the campaign, creating more materials and
connections that will be useful for this year’s campaign and many more
years to come.[11]

==Offline outreach: ten projects funded==* Smithsonian
Wikimedian-in-Residence for Gender Representation: This project will
establish a Wikimedian-in-Residence for the Smithsonian Women's History
Initiative, and increase the representation of women on Wikimedia projects,
and seek ongoing support for a permanent Wikimedian-in-Residence at the
institution.[12]

* Action Plan for Wikipedia + Libraries Training in Mexico: OCLC will
investigate the viability of and approach to a Wikipedia+Libraries training
program for library staff in Mexico, to leverage the libraries in support
of the Wikimedia Foundation’s New Readers initiative. This project will
identify a Mexico-based org

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wikipedia digital common and states

[Pine W]

Hi,

Chapters and other local groups sometimes have informal or formal
relationships with national government agencies. WMF, as far as I know, is
currently involved in a lawsuit against the US Government but
simultaneously has informal friendly relations with the US National
Archives. WMF also has contacts with GLAM institutions, and the last time I
checked WMF was providing some financial support for a Wikimedian in
Residence who was working with a United Nations agency. I suggest that you
contact the WMF Communications Department or the WMF Legal Department if
you would like more information. See
https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/contact/.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 4:20 PM Sebastien Shulz 
wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> I'm currently working on a sociology Ph.D. research (at the Université
> Paris-Est) on the relations between digital commons and states. I have two
> french case studies, and I'm looking for a third one at an international
> scale. I wanted to know where I can found information about what kind of
> relation Wikimedia foundation has with the different national states or
> international entities (UN, EU etc.). Have you in mind examples of strong
> partenrship (either political, financial, legal, governance etc.) between
> international or national wikimedia foundation and one international or
> state administration ?
>
> Thank you in advance for your insights!
> Best regards,
>
> *Sébastien Shulz*
> *Doctorant en sociologie *
> *Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire Sciences Innovations Sociétés*
> *06.68.86.68.46 // Linkedin *
> ___
> 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] Fwd: [Wikimedia-l] Why We Read Wikipedia in your language

[Pine W]

Forwarding.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


-- Forwarded message -
From: Leila Zia 
Date: Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 10:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why We Read Wikipedia in your language
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 


Hi all,

Update time.

Given that this is a long email: there is an action item in the 5th
bullet point below for the language communities who want to
participate in the next iteration of the study. If you are interested
to have your language included in the study, we need a response by
2019-02-15. See below for more.

* The paper on Why the World Reads Wikipedia is accepted in WSDM '19
[1]. If you are planning to attend the conference, stop by to hear
Florian Lemmerich presenting the work. You can read the paper at
https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.00474 . If you have time to only read one
subsection of the paper, we would recommend section 4.4. Summary of
Results. From there, you can start reading the other parts of the
paper depending on your interest about introduction, methodology and
data, etc. If you prefer to watch a presentation about the paper, you
can check out the December 2018 Research showcase [2].

* Remember that our offer to provide presentations and discuss the
result with your language community, if your language is part of the
14 languages in the study [3], is still on the table. :) If you want
to talk with us about this topic, sign up at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reader_Behaviour/Contact_us#Request_a_presentation
. No pressure from us: only if having a conversation about readers
help your language community in what you do.

* We have put extensive effort to document the code [4] and data [5]
for this research such that each language community can dive in their
data as they see fit.

* What's next?
The previous results made one point clear to us: geography and
language matter and depending on from where in the world the reader is
accessing a specific Wikipedia language, they may have different needs
and motivations [6]. We hypothesize that age, gender, education,
native language, as well as geographic region the reader is from can
help us understand and characterize the needs and motivations of
Wikipedia readers better. As some of you may already be guessing:
there are some big questions ahead of us. For example, are there
disparities in access to content depending on the readers' age or
gender? Does the trajectory of readers differ depending on their
demographics? We'd like to start addressing questions along these
lines and better understand the needs and motivations of
sub-populations within a country or language community.

To do the above, we will rerun the study and this time we will include
some demographics questions as part of the study.

* How can your language community participate in the upcoming study of
reader demographics?
As always, research on this front is not possible without a very close
collaboration between the language communities who will participate in
this study and the researchers. If you want your language to be
included in this round of the study, please sign up at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reader_Behaviour/Demographics_and_Wikipedia_use_cases#Interested_languages
on or before 2019-02-15 .

Please note that the priority will be given to the 14 languages that
participated in the previous round and that we will do our best to
include new languages. Also note that we may not be able to run the
study in all the languages that sign up: the traffic to the language
edition, the diversity that the inclusion of the language can bring to
the language pool, our capacity to run the analysis in the language,
the availability of the point of contact from the language for
translations will all play a role in the final list of languages that
we can include in the study. This being said, please don't shy away
from listing your language there if you're interested. :)

Best,
Leila, on behalf of the researchers (Isaac Johnson, Florian Lemmerich,
Diego Saez, Markus Strohmaier, Bob West, and myself)

[1] http://www.wsdm-conference.org/2019/
[2] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Showcase#December_2018
[3] ar, bn, de, en, es, he, hi, hu, ja, nl, ro, ru, uk, zh
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reader_Behaviour/Code
[5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reader_Behaviour/Data
[6] The needs and motivations themselves don't change, but the
distribution over possible options can change, as well as the reader
characteristics that can describe them.
[7]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reader_Behaviour/Demographics_and_Wikipedia_use_cases

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 5:43 PM Leila Zia  wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Update time.
>
> Thank you all for your patience and support as we went through the
> different stages of the analysis for this study. We have

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Analytics] Farewell, Erik!

[Pine W]

Thanks for your work, Erik. I hope that we will see you in the future.

This is the first time that I can recall hearing about a person retiring
from WMF. Volunteer retirements and semi-retirements happen regularly, and
the reasons that I hear for those retirements are often sad. It's nice to
hear of someone who is retiring after years of success and is moving in a
positive direction.

I think that you leave a good legacy in the Wikiverse, and as you might
guess from my username, I like what you chose for your next project.

Best wishes,

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Wikidata] Fully funded PhD positions at TU Dresden

[Pine W]

Forwarding.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


-- Forwarded message -
From: Markus Kroetzsch 
Date: Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 3:54 PM
Subject: [Wikidata] Fully funded PhD positions at TU Dresden
To: Discussion list for the Wikidata project. 


Dear Wikidatans,

We are currently looking to fill two 100%-funded researcher positions in
the field of knowledge representation, AI, and data analysis. This might
be of interest to some of you, or to someone you know:

https://iccl.inf.tu-dresden.de/web/Jobs/en

Applicants should have (or be about to finish) a very good MSc degree or
equivalent in computer science or a related field (esp. mathematics).
Knowledge of Wikidata and related technologies is a plus but not a
requirement. Postdocs can also apply if their research is related to the
project.

Our research group is international, with English as the main language
in everyday work. The positions are part of a major collaborative
research project that aims at improving human understanding of software
systems, and which is starting just now; see
https://www.perspicuous-computing.science/  We aim to further increase
the share of female researchers in our team, so we'd like to encourage
women to apply [1].

I am happy to answer informal questions by email. The application
deadline is quite soon but it can (and probably will) be extended until
the positions are filled. Please feel free to forward this to anyone you
know who might be interested.

Cheers,

Markus

[1] All other genders, including men, are welcome too.

-- 
Prof. Dr. Markus Kroetzsch
Knowledge-Based Systems Group
Center for Advancing Electronics Dresden (cfaed)
Faculty of Computer Science
TU Dresden
+49 351 463 38486
https://kbs.inf.tu-dresden.de/

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Help us understand ORES and make good tradeoffs

[Pine W]

Hi Bowen, after reading your project proposal I have a few questions and
concerns.

You mention a perceived tension between protecting newcomers and protecting
the quality of content. I am wondering whether that is a false dichotomy.
In my experience, test edits and blatant vandalism usually look different
from mistakes from good faith editors.

There is a feature that allows users to adjust ORES-supported edit scoring
in our watchlists and Recdent Changes:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Edit_Review_Improvements/New_filters_for_edit_review.
Have you tested this feature? How would your research be useful for that
feature's future development?

I think that ORES is supposed to aid human judgment, not to substitute for
human judgment. How certain are you that "ORES applications will play a
role in drawing a line between acceptable freestyle edits and editing
policies in standard."? There may well be some human patrollers who adjust
their definitions for vandalism based on ORES recommendations, but I think
that you would want to know to what extent ORES has that effect.

I would also like to mention that Wikipedia policies and guidelines, like
offline human laws and customs, may change over time, may have varying
interpretations, and may have varying degrees of adherence among the
populace.

Thanks for your interest in studying ORES. I am glad that you are
collaborating with Aaron.



On Thu, Dec 13, 2018, 7:08 AM Bowen Yu  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> ORES has been out and served for the Wikipedia community for a while, for
> the purpose such as counter-vandalism. Having seen the wide usage and
> effectiveness of ORES in the community, we'd like to continue working on
> ORES development. We plan to improve and redesign ORES algorithms by
> incorporating feedbacks of all the stakeholders involved in the entire ORES
> ecosystem, such as ORES application developers, ORES application operators,
> etc. We want to understand their concerns and values, and come up with
> effective algorithmic designs that can balance trade-offs and mitigate
> potential conflicts of interests (such as edit quality control v.s.
> newcomer protection) to further improve ORES performance.
>
> We will work with Aaron Halfaker and his team to make improvements on ORES
> quality control models, and identify its limitations. Here is the project
> proposal on Meta-Wiki
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Applying_Value-Sensitive_Algorithm_Design_to_ORES
> >.
> If you are interested or have any thoughts, please feel free to reach out
> to me. Thanks!
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
-- 

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Wikidata] Wikidata Data Quality Workshop

[Pine W]

Forwarding to Research-l in case this is of interest to others.



-- Forwarded message -
From: Mariam Farda Sarbas 
Date: Tue, Dec 4, 2018, 1:30 PM
Subject: [Wikidata] Wikidata Data Quality Workshop
To: 


Hello,

We are organizing a workshop on Data Quality Management in Wikidata
(http://wikidata-quality-workshop.org) on January 18th, 2019 in Berlin
(Office of Wikimedia Deutschland).

The workshop will give scientific researchers and the Wikidata community
members the opportunity to discuss and present preliminary findings,
ideas, opinions, and demos.

We have an open call for abstracts (submission deadline December 6, 2018),
and will give the authors of accepted abstracts the opportunity to submit
a full paper (by March 2019).

Best,
The workshop team



___
Wikidata mailing list
wikid...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
-- 

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] mailing list

[Pine W]

Hello, were you intending to subscribe or unsubscribe? There is no content
to your message aside from the signature block. :)

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 3:44 PM POGAKU, RAVINDRA  wrote:

>
>
> Dr. Ravindra Pogaku
> Research Professor of Chemical Engineering
> Center of Catalysis for Renewable Fuels
> The University of South Carolina
> 541 Main Street Office, H013
> Columbia, SC  29201
> Phone: 803-576-6069, Cell:  803-849-9623
>
> ___
> 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] Fwd: [Wikimedia-l] November 30 deadline for new Project Grant proposals

[Pine W]

Cross-posting.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


-- Forwarded message -
From: Chris "Jethro" Schilling 
Date: Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 3:33 AM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] November 30 deadline for new Project Grant
proposals
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 


Hi folks,

The open call for Project Grants is officially underway! As you prepare
your proposals this month, please keep in mind that the final deadline is
November 30th, and that this will be only the only open call for Project
Grants during this fiscal year, which ends on June 30th, 2019. To learn
more about this grant program and how to prepare an application, please
visit our landing page on Meta. <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project>

In addition to the resources mentioned in the prior announcement, we have
scheduled some proposal clinics where applicants will be able to discuss
their proposals or ask questions with Wikimedia Foundation staff using
Google Meet or using IRC. Some of these will be themed toward specific
topics (such as proposals involving a GLAM-related project), and others
will be more general. For a list of scheduled proposal clinics, please
review the Project Grants landing page on Meta. <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project#Upcoming_events>. Additional
clinics may be added throughout the month.

Thanks,

Chris

Chris "Jethro" Schilling
I JethroBT (WMF) 
He/His/Their
Program Officer, Wikimedia Foundation



On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 8:08 PM Chris "Jethro" Schilling <
cschill...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> The open call for the Wikimedia Foundation Project Grants program will
> begin on November 1, when we begin public review of new proposals.  The
> final deadline is November 30th for all submissions. <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project>. Importantly, this will
> be the only open call for Project Grants in the current fiscal year, which
> ends on June 30th 2019.
>
> We are also seeking additional volunteer candidates to expand the Project
> Grants Committee.  More information is provided at the end of this email.
>
> Project Grant funds are available to support individuals, groups and
> organizations to implement new experiments and proven ideas, whether
> focused on building a new tool or gadget, organizing a better process on
> your wiki, researching an important issue, coordinating an editathon
series
> or providing other support for community building.
>
> We offer the following resources to help you plan your project and
> complete a grant proposal:
> * Tutorials for writing a strong application: <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Tutorial>
> * General planning page for Project Grants:  <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Plan>
> * Program guidelines and criteria: <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Learn>
>
> Program officers are also available to offer individualized proposal
> support upon request.  Contact us at projectgra...@wikimedia.org if you
> would like feedback or more information.
>
> We are excited to see your grant ideas that will support our community and
> make an impact on the future of Wikimedia projects.  Put your idea into
> motion, and submit your proposal by November 30th! <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Apply>
>
> Volunteering for the Project Grants Committee
> We are also seeking candidates to participate in the Project Grants
> Committee, the volunteer decision-making body that reviews all Project
> Grant proposals and decides which projects to fund.  Committee members
have
> diverse backgrounds with skill sets like:
> * On-wiki editing and experience
> * Experience leading, coordinating, or managing projects with an intended
> on-wiki or online impact.
> * Background in handling externally provided money and working within
> budgets, preferably in a non-profit context.
> * Any grants you've applied for or worked in grant programs (in the
> Wikimedia, academic, or wider non-profit world).
> * Expertise in areas like knowledge equity or knowledge as a service, that
> will help us move toward our movement strategic direction
> * Software or research expertise
> If you are interested in serving as a committee member, you cand find more
> information and submit your candidacy here by November 15th: <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Committee/Candidates>
>
> Please feel free to get in touch with questions about getting started with
> your grant application, or about serving on the Project Grants Committee.
> Contact us at projectgra...@wikimedia.org.
>
> Take care,
>
> Chris
>
> Chris "Jethro" Schilling
> I JethroBT (WMF) 
> He/His/Their
> Program Officer, Wikimedia Foundation
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, gui

[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Analytics] Community health metrics kit: Input needed!

[Pine W]

Forwarding a request for input.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


-- Forwarded message -
From: Joe Sutherland 
Date: Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 9:29 PM
Subject: [Analytics] Community health metrics kit: Input needed!
To: A mailing list for the Analytics Team at WMF and everybody who has an
interest in Wikipedia and analytics. 


Hello everyone - apologies for cross-posting! *TL;DR*: We would like your
feedback on our Metrics Kit project. Please have a look and comment on
Meta-Wiki:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_health_initiative/Metrics_kit


The Wikimedia Foundation's Trust and Safety team, in collaboration with the
Community Health Initiative, is working on a Metrics Kit designed to
measure the relative "health"[1] of various communities that make up the
Wikimedia movement:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_health_initiative/Metrics_kit

The ultimate outcome will be a public suite of statistics and data looking
at various aspects of Wikimedia project communities. This could be used by
both community members to make decisions on their community direction and
Wikimedia Foundation staff to point anti-harassment tool development in the
right direction.

We have a set of metrics we are thinking about including in the kit,
ranging from the ratio of active users to active administrators,
administrator confidence levels, and off-wiki factors such as freedom to
participate. It's ambitious, and our methods of collecting such data will
vary.

Right now, we'd like to know:
* Which metrics make sense to collect? Which don't? What are we missing?
* Where would such a tool ideally be hosted? Where would you normally look
for statistics like these?
* We are aware of the overlap in scope between this and Wikistats <
https://stats.wikimedia.org/v2/#/all-projects> — how might these tools
coexist?

Your opinions will help to guide this project going forward. We'll be
reaching out at different stages of this project, so if you're interested
in direct messaging going forward, please feel free to indicate your
interest by signing up on the consultation page.

Looking forward to reading your thoughts.

best,
Joe

P.S.: Please feel free to CC me in conversations that might happen on this
list!

[1] What do we mean by "health"? There is no standard definition of what
makes a Wikimedia community "healthy", but there are many indicators that
highlight where a wiki is doing well, and where it could improve. This
project aims to provide a variety of useful data points that will inform
community decisions that will benefit from objective data.

--
*Joe Sutherland* (he/him or they/them)
Trust and Safety Specialist
Wikimedia Foundation
joesutherland.rocks
___
Analytics mailing list
analyt...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Wikidata] Passing on praise/ISWC trip report

[Pine W]

Forwarding some good news.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


-- Forwarded message -
From: Markus Kroetzsch 
Date: Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 12:30 AM
Subject: [Wikidata] Passing on praise/ISWC trip report
To: Discussion list for the Wikidata project. 


Dear all,

I am happy to report that we have just won the Best Paper Award of the
In-Use track of this year's International Semantic Web Conference
(ISWC), for our description of the SPARQL/RDF technology use on Wikidata
[1]. I keep telling people here that the general awesomeness of Wikidata
is the work of many, and in particular of this great community of editors.

Overall, the year's ISWC here in Monterey, CA has surprised Denny and me
with the huge uptake that Wikidata gets by now in industry and academia
alike, which was a huge breakthrough over last year. An amazing array of
people are doing great work based on this data, and again I would like
to pass on all the thank you's I have heard over this week to all of you
working hard to make this happen. Users range from individual students
to major tech companies, and I hope there will be many contributions
flowing back to us through these stakeholders. We also have seen an
increasing amount of research being done using Wikidata for evaluation
and testing, again both in published works and in conversations with
people in small and big organisations.

Let me also congratulate Fariz Darari, who is not a stranger to this
list either, on receiving the Best Dissertation Award of the Semantic
Web Science Association for the research that is also behind some of the
tools he has been creating for Wikidata.

I gave another talk related to Wikidata's ontological modeling, which I
hope did not represent the situation all too wrongly [2] ;-). There will
be videos of this and the best paper presentation, and most other ISWC
talks on VideoLectures in the not-so-far future.

Finally, since our best paper is about the use of BlazeGraph as a
platform for queries, let me also mention that we have had a number of
productive meetings here to discuss the future of this great software
(you may know that there were some organisational changes to the team
developing this so far). There will be opportunity to contribute to this
open source project, either as a developer or in other ways, in the
future. Stay tuned for more information on this.

So, thanks again to everyone working towards the great success of this
project -- amazing work!

Greetings from Asilomar

Markus


[1] Stanislav Malyshev, Markus Krötzsch, Larry González, Julius Gonsior,
Adrian Bielefeldt: "Getting the Most out of Wikidata: Semantic
Technology Usage in Wikipedia’s Knowledge Graph"
Talk slides and paper online:
https://iccl.inf.tu-dresden.de/web/Inproceedings3044/en

[2] Markus Krötzsch
Ontological Modelling in Wikidata
Invited keynote at the 9th Workshop on Ontology Design and Patterns (WOP'18)
Slides: https://iccl.inf.tu-dresden.de/web/Misc3058/en

-- 
Prof. Dr. Markus Kroetzsch
Knowledge-Based Systems Group
Center for Advancing Electronics Dresden (cfaed)
Faculty of Computer Science
TU Dresden
+49 351 463 38486
https://kbs.inf.tu-dresden.de/

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are published!

[Pine W]

Those all sound like good suggestions. I have flagged this entire
conversation for me to review if and when I get funding for continuing work
on my project. I hope that the WMF Growth team is also aware of this
conversation.

By the way, Edward, if you're still reading this, thanks for letting us
have an extended conversation about community health in the thread that you
started about the CEI survey.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 8:54 AM Kerry Raymond 
wrote:

> Stripping out a long email trail ...
>
> I am not advocating lowering the BLP bar as there are genuine legal needs
> to prevent libel.
>
> What I am advocating is not letting new users do their first edits in
> “high risk” articles. When I do training, I pick exercises for the group
> which deliberately take place in quiet backwaters of Wikipedia, eg add
> schools to local suburb articles. Such articles have low readership and low
> levels of watchers and no BLP considerations, i.e. low risk articles. If
> the newbie first edit is a bit of a mess, probably no reader will see it
> before it is fixed by a subsequent edit. They will be able to get help from
> me to fix it before anyone is harmed by it and before anyone reverts them.
>
> The “organic” newbie can dive into any article. It would be a very
> interesting research question to look at reverts and see if we can develop
> risk models that predict which articles are at higher risks of reverted
> edits (e.g. quality rating, length, type of article eg BLP, level of
> readership, number of active watchers, etc) and there might be separate
> models specifically for newbies revert risk and female newbie revert risk.
>
> Or we just simply calculate the proportion of  reverted edits and just use
> declare anything over some threshold as “high risk” and not bother finding
> out what the article characteristics are. We could also calculate what is
> the newbie revert rate.
>
> Then we have something actionable. We could treat the high risk articles
> (by predictive model or straight stats) as semi-protected and divert
> newbies from making direct edits. Or at least warn them before letting them
> loose. For that matter, warn any user if they are entering into a high
> conflict zone.
>
> When you learn to drive a car, you normally start in the quiet streets,
> not a busy high speed freeway, not narrow winding roads without guard rails
> up a mountain. Why shouldn’t we take the same attitude to Wikipedia? Start
> where it is safe.
>
> 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-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are published!

[Pine W]

Further thought regarding the notability criteria for BLPs: Asaf made a
suggestion awhile ago, and unfortunately I can't remember exactly where I
heard about it, but I thought that it was a good idea. He suggested being
more context-specific when considering the bar for BLPs. I think that his
statement went something like this: in a culture where having information
about someone be published in newspapers is a rarity, the lack of being
published in a newspaper is not a good test for whether someone should be
considered notable. I think that Asaf's proposal was more nuanced than I'm
describing it, but in general I thought that it was worth seriously
considering.

If someone meets a revised notability bar for a BLP, there may still be a
problem with finding information that is verifiable and reliable. I don't
know of a good way to deal with that. I think that we have a problem with
believing (this is a bit of an exaggeration, but I think that you'll
understand my point) that if something is written in a book that is
published by a reputable publisher that therefore it must be reliable and
verifiable, while something is not reliable and verifiable if it is
communicated only orally in a culture where written communications are rare
or nonexistent. I don't know how to deal with that problem, but I do think
that it's a problem.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 6:06 AM Pine W  wrote:

> WSC,
>
> I think that we'd need to be very careful about lowering the bar for BLPs
> on ENWP, because there are innumerable non-notable professionals who seem
> to pay people to add their biographies (and/or small organizations) to
> Wikipedia, and I am more happy to keep them out of the world's encyclopedia
> unless they've done something that's more significant than publishing an
> occasional scholarly article, owning a small consultancy, and receiving a
> few professional distinctions like "adjunct professor of cardiology at XYZ
> University". I'm not saying that we can't lower the bar, but we'd want to
> be very careful about doing so in order to avoid giving marketers and PR
> people a wider opening for using Wikipedia as a marketing and PR platform.
>
> I'm very supportive of improving the user experience for aspiring
> contributors who use mobile devices, but I am not optimistic that this will
> lead to a substantial increase in the population of ENWP Wikipedians who
> can become proficient with the details of our many policies, are willing to
> persist through negative experiences with other contributors (including
> vandals, overzealous patrollers, POV-pushers, etc.), and volunteer their
> time for high profile roles like WikiProject coordinator or ENWP
> administrator. Perhaps non-English Wikipedias do better with editor
> retention; I'm also thinking that Commons might be a good place for new
> contributors to start if and when mobile editing becomes more user-friendly.
>
> I think that making reversions feel less hostile would be good for
> diversity and good for editor retention in general, so I'd suggest that WMF
> prioritize working on that point. I'm also hoping to improve user
> onboarding with my video project and in collaboration with the WMF Growth
> team. I generally appreciate how Kerry is thinking about these problems;
> she and I have both given feedback to the WMF Growth team.
>
> Regards,
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
>
>
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are published!

[Pine W]

WSC,

I think that we'd need to be very careful about lowering the bar for BLPs
on ENWP, because there are innumerable non-notable professionals who seem
to pay people to add their biographies (and/or small organizations) to
Wikipedia, and I am more happy to keep them out of the world's encyclopedia
unless they've done something that's more significant than publishing an
occasional scholarly article, owning a small consultancy, and receiving a
few professional distinctions like "adjunct professor of cardiology at XYZ
University". I'm not saying that we can't lower the bar, but we'd want to
be very careful about doing so in order to avoid giving marketers and PR
people a wider opening for using Wikipedia as a marketing and PR platform.

I'm very supportive of improving the user experience for aspiring
contributors who use mobile devices, but I am not optimistic that this will
lead to a substantial increase in the population of ENWP Wikipedians who
can become proficient with the details of our many policies, are willing to
persist through negative experiences with other contributors (including
vandals, overzealous patrollers, POV-pushers, etc.), and volunteer their
time for high profile roles like WikiProject coordinator or ENWP
administrator. Perhaps non-English Wikipedias do better with editor
retention; I'm also thinking that Commons might be a good place for new
contributors to start if and when mobile editing becomes more user-friendly.

I think that making reversions feel less hostile would be good for
diversity and good for editor retention in general, so I'd suggest that WMF
prioritize working on that point. I'm also hoping to improve user
onboarding with my video project and in collaboration with the WMF Growth
team. I generally appreciate how Kerry is thinking about these problems;
she and I have both given feedback to the WMF Growth team.

Regards,

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are published!

[Pine W]

Kerry,

This discussion about reverts, combined with my recent experience on ENWP,
makes me wonder if there's a way to make reverts feel less hostile on
average. Do you have any ideas about how to do that?

Thanks,

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are published!

[Pine W]

Ziko,

That's certainly true. I think that Aaron Halfaker and the ORES team were
hoping to use ORES to identify with greater certainty which newbies are
likely to be good-faith very early in their edit counts, so as to try to
route those newbies to the Teahouse and other places where they could get
support. Perhaps Aaron or Jonathan Morgan could comment on how successful,
or unsuccessful, those efforts with ORES were.

More recently ORES seems to be focusing on helping experienced Wikimedians
to identify vandalism.

Gerard makes a good point that moving the needle in a statistically
significant way on a huge project like ENWP is a challenging goal. On the
other hand, the continuing inflow of new editors, on ENWP and elsewhere,
gives me hope that we have some time to increase the viability and
sustainability of the projects. Also, on ENWP and other large projects, if
someone finds a way to increase the retention of good-faith contributors by
a relatively small percentage, because the numbers involved are so large, a
small percentage change can be very valuable in terms of absolute numbers.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 5:27 AM Ziko van Dijk  wrote:

> Hello Kerry,
>
> While I agree to most what you said, I think that the bigger picture should
> include that: newbies are not always good contributors, and not always
> good-faith contributors. And even if they have good faith, that does not
> mean that they can be trained to become good contributors. Dealing with
> newbies means always a filtering. MAybe different people are differently
> optimistic about the probability to make a newbie a good contributor.
>
> Kind regards,
> Ziko
>
> Kerry Raymond  schrieb am Do. 27. Sep. 2018 um
> 06:47:
>
> > While I have no objection to the administrator training, I don't think
> > most of the problem lies with administrators. There's a lot of biting of
> > the good-faith newbies done by "ordinary" editors (although I have seen
> > some admins do it too). And, while I agree that there are many good folk
> > out there on en.WP, unfortunately the newbie tends to meet the other folk
> > first or perhaps it's that 1 bad experience has more impact than one good
> > experience.
> >
> > Similarly while Arbcom's willingness to desysop folks is good, I doubt a
> > newbie knows how or where to complain in the first instance. Also
> there's a
> > high level of defensive reaction if they do. Some of my trainees have
> > contacted me about being reverted for clearly good-faith edits on the
> most
> > spurious of reasons. When I have restored their edit with a hopefully
> > helpful explanation, I often get reverted too. If a newbie takes any
> action
> > themselves, it is likely to be an undo and that road leads to 3RR block
> or
> > at least a 3RR warning. The other action they take is to respond on their
> > User Talk page (when there is a message there to respond to). However,
> such
> > replies are usually ignored, whether the other user isn't watching for a
> > reply or whether they just don't like their authority to be challenged, I
> > don't know. But it rarely leads to a satisfactory resolution.
> >
> > One of the problems we have with Wikipedia is that most of us tend to see
> > it edit-by-edit (whether we are talking about a new edit or a revert of
> an
> > edit), we don't ever see a "big picture" of a user's behaviour without a
> > lot of tedious investigation (working through their recent contributions
> > one by one). So, it's easy to think "I am not 100% sure that the
> > edit/revert I saw was OK but I really don't have time to see if this is
> > one-off or a consistent problem". Maybe we need a way to privately
> "express
> > doubt" about an edit (in the way you can report a Facebook post). Then if
> > someone starts getting too many "doubtful edits" per unit time (or
> > whatever), it triggers an admin (or someone) to take a closer look at
> what
> > that user is up to. I think if we had a lightweight way to express doubt
> > about any edit, then we could use machine learning to detect patterns
> that
> > suggest specific types of undesirable user behaviours that can really
> only
> > be seen as a "big picture".
> >
> > Given this is the research mailing list, I guess we should we talking
> > about ways research can help with this problem.
> >
> > Kerry
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wiki-research-l [mailto:
> wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org]
> > On Behalf Of Pine W
> > Sent: W

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are published!

[Pine W]

Hi Kerry,

Your comments are well taken (at least by me)!

I like the idea of letting users upvote or downvote edits, and having a
time-weighted average of those scores be public or at least visible to
administrators. Users who accumulate a significant number of downvotes
would be good for admins to review, especially if those downvotes come from
multiple users in a short period of time. Upvotes could be closely linked
to the "Thanks" feature, except that users could be offered the option to
thank anonymously or thank non-anonymously. I suggest that you propose your
suggestions in IdeaLab, and I may make some comments on the IdeaLab post.
The Anti-Harrassment Tools Team might be interested in that idea for their
own reasons.

Regarding reversions, I think that I heard Jonathan Morgan once say that
reverting good-faith new editors makes them significantly more likely to
stop editing. Perhaps he could share some research or thoughts on that
point, and any other thoughts about the problem with excessively aggressive
reversions and/or comments on reversions.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 4:47 AM Kerry Raymond 
wrote:

> While I have no objection to the administrator training, I don't think
> most of the problem lies with administrators. There's a lot of biting of
> the good-faith newbies done by "ordinary" editors (although I have seen
> some admins do it too). And, while I agree that there are many good folk
> out there on en.WP, unfortunately the newbie tends to meet the other folk
> first or perhaps it's that 1 bad experience has more impact than one good
> experience.
>
> Similarly while Arbcom's willingness to desysop folks is good, I doubt a
> newbie knows how or where to complain in the first instance. Also there's a
> high level of defensive reaction if they do. Some of my trainees have
> contacted me about being reverted for clearly good-faith edits on the most
> spurious of reasons. When I have restored their edit with a hopefully
> helpful explanation, I often get reverted too. If a newbie takes any action
> themselves, it is likely to be an undo and that road leads to 3RR block or
> at least a 3RR warning. The other action they take is to respond on their
> User Talk page (when there is a message there to respond to). However, such
> replies are usually ignored, whether the other user isn't watching for a
> reply or whether they just don't like their authority to be challenged, I
> don't know. But it rarely leads to a satisfactory resolution.
>
> One of the problems we have with Wikipedia is that most of us tend to see
> it edit-by-edit (whether we are talking about a new edit or a revert of an
> edit), we don't ever see a "big picture" of a user's behaviour without a
> lot of tedious investigation (working through their recent contributions
> one by one). So, it's easy to think "I am not 100% sure that the
> edit/revert I saw was OK but I really don't have time to see if this is
> one-off or a consistent problem". Maybe we need a way to privately "express
> doubt" about an edit (in the way you can report a Facebook post). Then if
> someone starts getting too many "doubtful edits" per unit time (or
> whatever), it triggers an admin (or someone) to take a closer look at what
> that user is up to. I think if we had a lightweight way to express doubt
> about any edit, then we could use machine learning to detect patterns that
> suggest specific types of undesirable user behaviours that can really only
> be seen as a "big picture".
>
> Given this is the research mailing list, I guess we should we talking
> about ways research can help with this problem.
>
> Kerry
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wiki-research-l [mailto:wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org]
> On Behalf Of Pine W
> Sent: Wednesday, 26 September 2018 1:07 PM
> To: Wiki Research-l ; Rosie
> Stephenson-Goodknight 
> Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey
> are published!
>
> I'm appreciative that we're having this conversation - not in the sense
> that I'm happy with the status quo, but I'm glad that some of us are
> continuing to work on our persistent difficulties with contributor
> retention, civility, and diversity.
>
> I've spent several hours on ENWP recently, and I've been surprised by the
> willingness of people to revert good-faith edits, sometimes with blunt
> commentary or with no explanation. I can understand how a newbie who
> experienced even one of these incidents would find it to be unpleasant,
> intimidating, or discouraging. Based on these experiences, I've decided
> that I should coach 

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are published!

[Pine W]

I'm appreciative that we're having this conversation - not in the sense
that I'm happy with the status quo, but I'm glad that some of us are
continuing to work on our persistent difficulties with contributor
retention, civility, and diversity.

I've spent several hours on ENWP recently, and I've been surprised by the
willingness of people to revert good-faith edits, sometimes with blunt
commentary or with no explanation. I can understand how a newbie who
experienced even one of these incidents would find it to be unpleasant,
intimidating, or discouraging. Based on these experiences, I've decided
that I should coach newbies to avoid taking reversions personally if their
original contributions were in good faith.

I agree with Jonathan Morgan that WP:NOTSOCIAL can be overused.

Kerry, I appreciate your suggestions about about cultural change. I can
think of two ways to influence culture on English Wikipedia in large-scale
ways.

1. I think that there should be more and higher-quality training and
continuing education for administrators in topics like policies, conflict
resolution, communications skills, legal issues, and setting good examples.
I think that these trainings would be one way through which cultural change
could gradually happen over time. For what it's worth, I think that there
are many excellent administrators who do a lot of good work (which can be
tedious and/or stressful) with little appreciation. Also, my impression is
that ENWP Arbcom has become more willing over the years to remove admin
privileges from admins who misuse their tools. I recall having a discussion
awhile back with Rosie on the topic of training for administrators, and I'm
adding her to this email chain as an invitation for her to participate in
this discussion. I think that offering training to administrators could be
helpful in facilitating changes to ENWP culture.

2. I think that I can encourage civil participation in ENWP in the context
of my training project

that I'm hoping that WMF will continue to fund. ENWP is a complex and
sometimes emotionally difficult environment, and I'm trying to set a tone
in the online training materials that is encouraging. I hope to teach
newbies about the goals of Wikipedia as well as policies, how to use tools,
and Wikipedia culture. I am hopeful that the online training materials will
improve the confidence of new contributors, improve the retention of new
contributors, and help new editors to increase the quality and quantity of
their contributions. I hope that early portions of the project will be well
received and that, over time and if the project is successful as it
incrementally increases in scale and reach, that it will influence the
overall culture of ENWP to be more civil.

Regards,

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are published!

[Pine W]

I'm going to respond to Kerry and Jonathan in two parts of one email.

--

Hi Kerry, I did not say that transparency should be a free-for-all, and
it's important to keep in mind that transparency from my perspective is
intended to ensure due process for everyone involved. That includes
ensuring that people who are adjudicating cases are not callously
dismissing complaints, mistreating people who have been victimized,
neglecting evidence, or rushing to conclusions. I would oppose, for
example, people who are adjudicating a case deciding to engage in
questioning that is completely unnecessary for dealing with the relevant
allegations.

On a related issue, I don't trust WMF to adjudicate cases or involve itself
directly in deciding who gets to be on Wikimedia sites or attend Wikimedia
events; WMF is not the same thing as Wikimedia and I remain deeply unhappy
with some of WMF's choices over the years and its lack of apology for those
choices. I would be more trusting of a somewhat less transparent process
for adjudicating off-wiki problems if it was led by people who are elected
from the community, similar to English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee
elections. Arbcom is far from perfect, but I have modestly more faith in
Arbcom than I do in WMF. On the other hand, arbitrators are volunteers, and
over the years I have seen more than one instance of arbitrators appearing
to be stressed; volunteers with high skill levels and good intentions are a
precious resource, and if one of the outcomes of WMF's strategy process is
a move toward having a global Arbitration Committee then one of the
difficult questions will be how to get an adequate supply of highly skilled
people with good intentions to volunteer. On a related note, I prefer to
avoid identity politics when deciding who should be on arbitration
committees; I feel that identity politics are often poisonous and make it
very difficult to have civil dialogue. How to balance the virtue of
diversity with the virtue of avoiding identity politics is an issue that I
haven't worked out.

We're getting off of the topic of research and into more of a policy
discussion, so if you'd like to continue in this topic then I suggest doing
so on Wikimedia-l or on Meta.

--

Hi Jonathan, I'd be supportive of running small experiments about blocking
all IP editors on ENWP and mid-sized Wikipedias to see whether that is a
net positive. As you noted, the research would be somewhat complicated when
keeping in mind that the researchers would want to check for positive and
negative side effects, but I think that it would be worth doing. Would you
like to make a proposal in IdeaLab?

Regards,

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Research about discretionary sanctions on ENWP

[Pine W]

Done:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Research_on_ENWP_Discretionary_Sanctions

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 8:25 PM Sydney Poore  wrote:

> From: Sydney Poore 
> To: Pine W 
> Cc: wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Bcc:
> Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 16:20:40 -0400
> Subject: Re: Research about discretionary sanctions on ENWP
> Hello Pine,
> You might want to record it in the IdeaLab to make sure that it considered
> for future reference when people are discussing ideas for research.
> Sydney
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 4:01 PM Pine W  wrote:
>
>> Hello colleagues,
>>
>> There is currently a small amount of discussion happening on an ENWP
>> arbitration page
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Discretionary_sanctions>
>> regarding what ENWP calls "discretionary sanctions
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions>"
>> practices. Does anyone know of research regarding the effects, good and
>> bad, of the Arbcom authorization of discretionary sanctions? If not, then I
>> suggest that this be a topic of future research, particularly for
>> researchers involved with WMF's work on community health.
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Pine
>> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>>
>
>
> --
> Sydney Poore
> Trust and Safety Specialist
> Wikimedia Foundation
> Trust and Safety team;
> Anti-harassment tools team
>
>
> --
> Sydney Poore
> Trust and Safety Specialist
> Wikimedia Foundation
> Trust and Safety team;
> Anti-harassment tools team
>
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are published!

[Pine W]

ll very active and still mostly IPs. I note we have
> not changed our IP policy or our pseudonym account policy; editors remain
> as non-real-world accountable as always. As many online newspapers and
> other forums are turning off comments as they have learned that
> anonymous/pseudo accounts lead to completely unproductive name calling,
> defamatory comments, and not the constructive civil debate envisaged, yet
> at en.WP we persist in believing that the same approach can create a
> positive collaborative culture, which clearly it has not.
>
> There's no willingness even to experiment with anything that might change
> the culture and I see little likelihood that en.WP's culture will change of
> its own accord.
>
> However, there is one easy win for diversity at WMF. Start diversifying
> the WMF livestream times. Every WMF livestream is usually between 2-4am
> here in Australia so I'd like to see a bit of support for the Global East
> diversity by shifting the livestreams so everyone gets a chance to
> participate live. One small step that WMF could take ...
>
> Kerry
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wiki-research-l [mailto:wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org]
> On Behalf Of Pine W
> Sent: Saturday, 15 September 2018 1:52 PM
> To: Wiki Research-l 
> Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey
> are published!
>
> Hi Edward,
>
> Thanks for this publication. This research is likely to be of interest to
> the WikimediaAnnounce-l (and by extension, Wikimedia-l) and Wikitech-l
> subscribers, so I suggest that you cross-post this publication to those
> lists.
>
> After reading this report, I have a question which may be challenging to
> answer: what should we do to improve our diversity? Many of us, inside and
> outside of WMF, have wanted to see progress on diversity metrics for years,
> and I get the impression that while significant attention and resources are
> being given to diversity, our progress has been disappointing. Perhaps
> that's a subject that can be discussed further during the video
> presentation, but I'd also be interested in hearing your comments here on
> Research-l.
>
> Have a good weekend,
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 11:07 PM Edward Galvez 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I'm excited to share that our annual survey about Wikimedia
> > communities is now published!
> >
> > This survey included 170 questions and reaches over 4,000 community
> > members across four audiences: Contributors, Affiliate organizers,
> > Program Organizers, and Volunteer Developers. This survey helps us
> > hear from the experience of Wikimedians from across the movement so
> > that teams are able to use community feedback in their planning and
> > their work. This survey also helps us learn about long term changes in
> > communities, such as community health or demographics.
> >
> > The report is available on meta:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement_Insights/2018_Rep
> > ort
> >
> > For this survey, we worked with 11 teams to develop the questions.
> > Once the results were analyzed, we spent time with each team to help
> > them understand their results. Most teams have already identified how
> > they will use the results to help improve their work to support you.
> >
> > The report could be useful for your work in the Wikimedia movement as
> well!
> > What are you learning from the data? Take some time to read the report
> > and share your feedback on the talk pages. We have also published a
> > blog that you can read.[1]
> >
> > We are hosting a livestream presentation[2] on September 20 at 1600 UTC.
> > Hope to see you there!
> >
> > Feel free to email me directly with any questions.
> >
> > All the best,
> > Edward
> >
> >
> > [1]
> >
> > https://wikimediafoundation.org/2018/09/13/what-we-learned-surveying-4
> > 000-community-members/ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGQtWFP9Cjc
> >
> >
> > --
> > Edward Galvez
> > Evaluation Strategist, Surveys
> > Learning & Evaluation
> > Community Engagement
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> >
> > --
> > Edward Galvez
> > Evaluation Strategist, Surveys
> > Learning & Evaluation
> > Community Engagement
> > 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
>
>
> ___
> 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 about discretionary sanctions on ENWP

[Pine W]

Hello colleagues,

There is currently a small amount of discussion happening on an ENWP
arbitration page

regarding what ENWP calls "discretionary sanctions
"
practices. Does anyone know of research regarding the effects, good and
bad, of the Arbcom authorization of discretionary sanctions? If not, then I
suggest that this be a topic of future research, particularly for
researchers involved with WMF's work on community health.

Thank you,

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Wikitech-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey arepublished!

[Pine W]

I apologize for my continued confusion about what was written on which
mailing list. I can mostly blame Gmail for not handling the bcc's like I
think that it should. I referred to an email from 80hnhtv4agou in my
previous post to Research-l, but that person sent their email to
Wikitech-l. I am forwarding 80hnhtv4agou's email (below) to Research-l, and
I invited 80hnhtv4agou to participate here.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


-- Forwarded message -
From: 80hnhtv4agou--- via Wikitech-l 
Date: Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 1:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey
arepublished!
To: Wikimedia developers , <
egal...@wikimedia.org>



Experience of harassment has
not declined since 2017 and appears to remain steady

At
what point and time does the foundation step in, as some  language
editions do and stop the warring and abuse by users and administrators
?

does
the board know what is going on here ?

and
it is not just EN wikipedia, but in all l anguage  editions as well.
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are published!

[Pine W]

Hi Edward, I'm surprised that this thread only appears in my email under
Research-l, but I can see in the WMF mail archives that you sent the email
to other lists also. I wonder if that happened because you used bcc. Maybe
there is a bug in Gmail. On the topic of diversity research, thanks for the
link to the team reports. I'll put those on my list of things that would be
good to browse.

Regarding the topic of harassment that the person with the email
"80hnhtv4agou" raised, I think that it's good to ask what more could and
should be done. My view is that WMF shouldn't be directly intervening in
community activities, but WMF support for community self-governance is
welcome with actions such as developing better moderation tools and
providing financial support to affiliates and community members who want to
develop evidence-based training modules. Sydney Poore is on the
Anti-Harrassment Tools team and I'm pinging her here to invite her to add
any comments that she has.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 5:45 PM Edward Galvez  wrote:

> Thanks for your note Pine. I believe I have already shared this on
> Wikimedia-l; I haven't shared to Announce, so I can do that.
>
> "Diversity" is multifaceted. I think that some areas offer some hope (e.g.
> program organizers & affiliate organizers have higher proportion of women
> and geographic representation), others I am not uncertain whether we put a
> lot of attention (Education & Age), and in others we are seeing little
> progress (gender on the projects). And perhaps some aren't even on our
> radar. I think many teams are still working to understand what are the
> problems and possible levers that can help us to bring change to these
> measures.  Some of those teams include Contributors/Audiences team,
> Anti-Harassment Tools, Trust & Safety and Community Resources. Each of
> these teams bringing their own strengths and angles to the problem. I
> invite you to read the team reports
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement_Insights/2018_Report/Team_Reports
> >
> .
>
> The research team is also working on finding a way to capture demographic
> data as well this year. While we gather this data through CE Insights it is
> not the most optimal way to measure demographic data. There was also the
> recent email by Erik Zachte about language diversity (Email subject:
> "Wikipedias, participation per language") Always to good to start to
> measure what you want to change.
>
> I also invite you (and perhaps everyone on this list) to reflect on: what
> numbers are most concerning for you related to diversity? What could you do
> to improve diversity on the projects? And decide how you would like to take
> action.
>
> Hope this helps!
> Edward
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 8:53 PM Pine W  wrote:
>
> > Hi Edward,
> >
> > Thanks for this publication. This research is likely to be of interest to
> > the WikimediaAnnounce-l (and by extension, Wikimedia-l) and Wikitech-l
> > subscribers, so I suggest that you cross-post this publication to those
> > lists.
> >
> > After reading this report, I have a question which may be challenging to
> > answer: what should we do to improve our diversity? Many of us, inside
> and
> > outside of WMF, have wanted to see progress on diversity metrics for
> years,
> > and I get the impression that while significant attention and resources
> are
> > being given to diversity, our progress has been disappointing. Perhaps
> > that's a subject that can be discussed further during the video
> > presentation, but I'd also be interested in hearing your comments here on
> > Research-l.
> >
> > Have a good weekend,
> >
> > Pine
> > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 11:07 PM Edward Galvez 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > I'm excited to share that our annual survey about Wikimedia communities
> > is
> > > now published!
> > >
> > > This survey included 170 questions and reaches over 4,000 community
> > > members across
> > > four audiences: Contributors, Affiliate organizers, Program Organizers,
> > and
> > > Volunteer Developers. This survey helps us hear from the experience of
> > > Wikimedians from across the movement so that teams are able to use
> > > community feedback in their planning and their work. This survey also
> > helps
> > > us learn about long term changes in communities, such as community
> health
> > > or demographic

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are published!

[Pine W]

Hi Edward,

Thanks for this publication. This research is likely to be of interest to
the WikimediaAnnounce-l (and by extension, Wikimedia-l) and Wikitech-l
subscribers, so I suggest that you cross-post this publication to those
lists.

After reading this report, I have a question which may be challenging to
answer: what should we do to improve our diversity? Many of us, inside and
outside of WMF, have wanted to see progress on diversity metrics for years,
and I get the impression that while significant attention and resources are
being given to diversity, our progress has been disappointing. Perhaps
that's a subject that can be discussed further during the video
presentation, but I'd also be interested in hearing your comments here on
Research-l.

Have a good weekend,

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 11:07 PM Edward Galvez 
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm excited to share that our annual survey about Wikimedia communities is
> now published!
>
> This survey included 170 questions and reaches over 4,000 community
> members across
> four audiences: Contributors, Affiliate organizers, Program Organizers, and
> Volunteer Developers. This survey helps us hear from the experience of
> Wikimedians from across the movement so that teams are able to use
> community feedback in their planning and their work. This survey also helps
> us learn about long term changes in communities, such as community health
> or demographics.
>
> The report is available on meta:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement_Insights/2018_Report
>
> For this survey, we worked with 11 teams to develop the questions. Once the
> results were analyzed, we spent time with each team to help them understand
> their results. Most teams have already identified how they will use the
> results to help improve their work to support you.
>
> The report could be useful for your work in the Wikimedia movement as well!
> What are you learning from the data? Take some time to read the report and
> share your feedback on the talk pages. We have also published a blog that
> you can read.[1]
>
> We are hosting a livestream presentation[2] on September 20 at 1600 UTC.
> Hope to see you there!
>
> Feel free to email me directly with any questions.
>
> All the best,
> Edward
>
>
> [1]
>
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/2018/09/13/what-we-learned-surveying-4000-community-members/
> [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGQtWFP9Cjc
>
>
> --
> Edward Galvez
> Evaluation Strategist, Surveys
> Learning & Evaluation
> Community Engagement
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> --
> Edward Galvez
> Evaluation Strategist, Surveys
> Learning & Evaluation
> Community Engagement
> 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

[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Wikimedia-l] Why We Read Wikipedia in your language

[Pine W]

Cross-posting to Research-l. Thank you Leila.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


-- Forwarded message -
From: Leila Zia 
Date: Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 12:43 AM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why We Read Wikipedia in your language
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 


Hi all,

Update time.

Thank you all for your patience and support as we went through the
different stages of the analysis for this study. We have now concluded
the study based on the survey of the 14 Wikipedia languages [1]. Here
is what will happen next:

* We are doing some relatively major documentation at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reader_Behaviour
. The goal is to have that page and the sub-pages in a way that can be
consumed more easily by audiences beyond researchers. I expect the
pages to come to life almost completely on or before 2018-09-14. We
will need the first couple of weeks of October for data and code
documentation to make sure you have all the data you need for your
languages to dig deeper if you choose to. By the end of October,
please expect all documentation to be completed.

* We are happy to try to give presentations about this research to
your language community if there is interest on your end and we can
make it work on our end. The priority will be given to languages that
already participated in the study. If you want to sign up for one,
please go to
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reader_Behaviour/Contact_us#Request_a_presentation

* Our November Research Showcase [2] will most likely be on this
topic, so if you want to have a general overview of the results, keep
an eye on that.

* We have submitted a research paper to a peer-reviewed conference
based on this work. There is an anonymization process for the reviews
and in order to not break that we will wait until the results are out
(towards the end of October) and only then put the full paper on
arxiv, under CC BY-SA 4.0 or a more permissive license.

* We are discussing with our collaborators to potentially set up a
challenge for researchers to work with a subset of the data
(anonymized/aggregated/...) to answer an interesting research
questions. If you want to brainstorm with us about this, please drop a
line at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reader_Behaviour

* Do you have an idea about how to more effectively disseminate this
knowledge? please call it out. There is quite a bit of knowledge to
share and we're honestly not 100% sure what the best way to do it is
across a global movement. As a result, we're offering a mix of
documentation, pinging points of contacts in each language so they're
aware of them, general presentations, language specific presentations,
as well as data documentation for you to be able to dig on your own
deeper.

Best,
Leila, on behalf of the researchers (Florian Lemmerich, Diego Saez,
Bob West, and myself)

[1] ar, bn, de, en, es, he, hi, hu, ja, nl, ro, ru, uk, zh
[2] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Showcase

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: wikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

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

[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Wikitech-l] Change tag reading from the new column in the beta cluster

[Pine W]

Forwarding to Analytics and Research in case this is of interest.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


-- Forwarded message -
From: Amir Sarabadani 
Date: Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 9:19 PM
Subject: [Wikitech-l] Change tag reading from the new column in the beta
cluster
To: Wikimedia developers 


Hello,
As part of normalizing change tag schema [1] I just switched on reading
from the new column (ct_tag_id in change_tag table, a foreign key to ctd_id
from change_tag_def table) in beta cluster [2] which means new rows will
have empty string as their value of ct_tag. [3]

We are not rushing to flip the switch in production but I just wanted to
send this email asking people who test in beta cluster to file a
phabricator ticket if they see anything unexpected in there that might be
related change tags. This table is being read if someone checks history,
recent changes, watchlist, user contributions, or whole lot of other
special pages plus lots of API queries. I checked anything I could think of
but I might have missed something. Any extra pair of eyes would be
extremely appreciated.

[1]: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T185355
[2]: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T196671
[3]: For example:
MariaDB [enwiki]> select ct_id, ct_rc_id, ct_rev_id, ct_tag, ct_tag_id from
change_tag order by ct_id desc limit 10;
++--+---+---+---+
| ct_id  | ct_rc_id | ct_rev_id | ct_tag| ct_tag_id |
++--+---+---+---+
| 217824 |   633991 |384018 |   | 3 |
| 217823 |   633990 |384017 |   | 3 |
| 217822 |   633989 |384016 |   | 3 |
| 217821 |   633988 |384015 |   | 3 |
| 217820 |   633987 |384014 |   | 3 |
| 217819 |   633986 |384013 | mw-undo   | 2 |
| 217818 |   633985 |384012 | mw-undo   | 2 |
| 217817 |   633984 |384011 | visualeditor-wikitext |29 |
| 217816 |   633983 |384010 | mobile web edit   |16 |
| 217815 |   633983 |384010 | mobile edit   |15 |
++--+---+---+---+
10 rows in set (0.00 sec)

Thank you!
Best
-- 
Amir Sarabadani
Software Engineer

Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
http://wikimedia.de

Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen
Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
http://spenden.wikimedia.de/

Wikimedia Deutschland – Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Wikidata] Wikidata SPARQL Query Log Analysis

[Pine W]

Thanks, Greg. I'm forwarding to the Wiki Medicine list and to Research-l.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


-- Forwarded message -
From: Greg S 
Date: Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 5:26 PM
Subject: [Wikidata] Wikidata SPARQL Query Log Analysis
To: 


Hey all,
I've done a little digging into the SPARQL query logs and posted my
findings in two blog posts, here
 and here
. I've
looked mainly at item count, property count, and property co-occurrence,
stratified by organic/robotic and by user-agent. I also looked a little
more closely at biomedical properties and disease items. Please take a look
if you're interested.
-Greg

http://sulab.org/2018/08/wikidata-sparql-query-log-analysis/
http://sulab.org/2018/08/wikidata-sparql-query-log-item-analysis/
___
Wikidata mailing list
wikid...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

[Wiki-research-l] Design research presentation in the August WMF/Wikimedia Activities meeting

[Pine W]

Hello Research, Mobile, and Design colleagues,

In case other people are interested who didn't attend the August Wikimedia
Activities Meeting, there was a design research presentation in the meeting
regarding personas of mobile Wikimedia users: https://youtu.be/yZPZmRQnkXU

On a related note, I would like to learn more about design research,
including about how design research interfaces with analytics and UX
design, and I would like to request that WMF have an office hour on this
topic.

Regards,

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Wikitech-l] huwiki, arwiki to be treated as 'big wikis' and run parallel jobs

[Pine W]

More changes are coming for dumps, this time for Hungarian Wikipedia
(approximately 436,000 articles) and Arabic Wikipedia.(approximately
595,000 articles).

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


-- Forwarded message -
From: Ariel Glenn WMF 
Date: Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 10:27 AM
Subject: [Wikitech-l] huwiki, arwiki to be treated as 'big wikis' and run
parallel jobs
To: Wikipedia Xmldatadumps-l ,
Wikimedia developers 


Starting September 1, huwiki and arwiki, which both take several days to
complete the revsion history content dumps, will be moved to the 'big
wikis' list, meaning that they will run jobs in parallel as do frwiki,
ptwiki and others now, for a speedup.

Please update your scripts accordingly.  Thanks!

Task for this: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T202268

Ariel
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-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] Research with under-resourced Wikipedia community members

[Pine W]

Hi Lucie,

Your project sounds interesting. Are you coordinating your work with
Marshall Miller and WMF's renewed efforts to increase the size of the
population of contributors on mid-sized Wikipedias? See
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Growth. The initial focus of WMF will be on
Czech and Korean Wikipedias. The WMF Growth Team may have some data or
plans that may be relevant to your research, and vice versa.

You might also consider reaching out to the Small Wiki Monitoring Team
(SWMT) at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Small_Wiki_Monitoring_Team to ask
for advice and referrals to contributors who have extensive experience on
small and mid-sized Wikipedias.

Good luck,

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 4:03 PM Lucie-Aimée Kaffee 
wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> I am writing in the hope that some of you do not only do great research in
> the Wikimedia spaces, but are also editors. Particularly, editors of
> smaller Wikipedias (i.e. all Wikipedias but English, French, Dutch, German,
> Spanish, Italian).
>
> I am a PhD student at the University of Southampton, and we have been
> working on supporting editors with automated text generation [1].
>
> We would like to extend the research in this direction by conducting a
> series of interviews with editors (either in person or via skype) to
> understand in more detail how we can support the community in the future.
> The interviews should take about 30 minutes each and will happen end of
> August and in September. More information can be found here:
>
> https://github.com/luciekaffee/Announcements/blob/master/Interviews-Participant-Information-Sheet.md
>
> If you would be interested in participating, please let me know. If you
> might now an editor, that could be interested, please connect us! It will
> help us a great deal to understand how to support Wikipedia editors better,
> particularly of the smaller sized Wikipedias.
>
> I am looking forward to hearing from you!
> Thanks,
> Lucie
>
> [1] Mind the (Language) Gap: Generation of Multilingual Wikipedia Summaries
> from Wikidata for ArticlePlaceholders, Kaffee, Elsahar, Vougiouklis et al.,
> 2018,
>
> https://2018.eswc-conferences.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/ESWC2018_paper_131.pdf
>
> --
> Lucie-Aimée Kaffee
> Web and Internet Science Group
> School of Electronics and Computer Science
> University of Southampton
> ___
> 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] Fwd: [Wikitech-l] MultiContent Revisions and changes to the XML dumps

[Pine W]

Forwarding in case this is of interest to people on the Analytics or
Research lists who don't subscribe to Wikitech-l or Xmldatadumps-l.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

-- Forwarded message --
From: Ariel Glenn WMF 
Date: Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 2:40 PM
Subject: [Wikitech-l] MultiContent Revisions and changes to the XML dumps
To: Wikipedia Xmldatadumps-l ,
Wikimedia developers 


As many of you may know, MultiContent Revisions are coming soon (October?)
to a wiki near you. This means that we need changes to the XML dumps
schema; these changes will likely NOT be backwards compatible.

Initial discussion will take place here:
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T199121

For background on MultiContent Revisions and their use on e.g. Commons or
WikiData, see:

https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T200903 (Commons media medata)
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T194729 (Wikidata entites)
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Multi-Content_Revisions
(MCR generally)

There may be other, better tickets/pages for background; feel free to
supplement this list if you have such links.

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

[Wiki-research-l] "State of Wikimedia Research" presentation at Wikimania 2018

[Pine W]

In case people are interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pE2UQu3r6vE


The topics covered include:
* Media and images
* Talk page debates
* Comparisons of Wikipedia language editions
* Who is not participating?
* Wikipedia as a source of data


Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Wikitech-l] hewiki dump to be added to 'big wikis' and run with multiple processes

[Pine W]

Forwarding in case this is of interest to anyone on the Analytics or
Research lists who doesn't subscribe to Wikitech-l or Xmldatadumps-l.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

-- Forwarded message --
From: Ariel Glenn WMF 
Date: Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 5:53 AM
Subject: [Wikitech-l] hewiki dump to be added to 'big wikis' and run with
multiple processes
To: Wikipedia Xmldatadumps-l ,
Wikimedia developers 


Good morning!

The pages-meta-history dumps for hewiki take 70 hours these days, the
longest of any wiki not already running with parallel jobs. I plan to add
it to the list of 'big wikis' starting August 1st, meaning that 6 jobs will
run in parallel producing the usual numbered file output; look at e.g.
frwiki dumps for an example.

Please adjust any download/processing scripts accordingly.

Thanks!

Ariel
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-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] Elicit New Editor Interest

[Pine W]

Hi Leila,
Thanks for the explanation.
Further down the road, I hope that we can help newbies with onboarding by 
improving the ease of use of talk pages, and by automatically presenting them 
with more helpful resources (like links to the ENWP Teahouse or its equivalents 
on other wikis), and welcoming and explanatory videos.
Good luck with the project.
Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
 Original message From: Leila Zia  Date: 
6/11/18  8:37 PM  (GMT-08:00) To: Research into Wikimedia content and 
communities  Subject: Re: 
[Wiki-research-l] Elicit New Editor Interest 
Hi Pine,

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 8:32 PM Pine W  wrote:
>
> Hi Leila,
>
> This looks interesting. I have a few questions.
>
> 1. Why are users being asked for their email addresses? This creates
> privacy concerns regarding the handling of PII. I think that using
> usernames would be preferable.

As you can imagine, we deliberated on this for quite some time. The
issue is that on-wiki discussions are not easy for newcomers and we
don't want the complexity of figuring out how to communicate on wiki
get on the way of assessing the performance of the model. The users
will need to make a conscious choice for sharing their emails though,
and there will be a privacy statement associated with this experiment.

> 2. I'm unclear on whether the plan is to invite newbies to contact veterans
> who may have edited similar pages.

No, the plan is to pair newcomers with each other.

I hope this helps.

Best,
Leila

> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 10:33 AM, Leila Zia  wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > We just added a new formal collaboration with Ramtin Yazdanian from
> > EPFL to develop, design and test models that can help us learn about
> > New Editor Interests. While the applications of these models are
> > numerous, we expect to use them at least in the line of research in
> > addressing Wikipedia contributor diversity gaps.
> >
> > This research is aimed to address the cold start problem in Wikimedia
> > projects, when a user enters the system and you have almost no
> > information about the user and yet you want to engage with the user in
> > the areas they're interested in. Please see project details at
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Voice_and_exit_
> > in_a_voluntary_work_environment/Elicit_new_editor_interests
> >
> > Best,
> > Leila
> >
> > --
> > Leila Zia
> > Senior Research Scientist, Lead
> > 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

___
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] Building tools, services and datasets that respect deleted and suppressed revisions

[Pine W]

Thank you, Leila and Patrick. :)

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 8:33 PM, Leila Zia  wrote:

> Hi Pine, thanks for the ping. I meant to send an update email but forgot.
> :)
>
> Yiqing: Patrick Earley and I discussed this with Lucas on Thursday.
> Give us a little bit of time to figure this out, I know it's priority
> for Patrick et al. There is no immediate pointer that we can think of
> and it needs some iterations on our end.
>
> Thanks,
> Leila
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 8:21 PM Pine W  wrote:
> >
> > Hi Research-l,
> > I'm bumping this question because apparently no one has answered yet,
> and I
> > think that it's a good question that should get an answer. I would like
> for
> > third-party researchers who are trying to align their work with Wikimedia
> > policies and practices in their research to get the support that they
> need
> > to make that happen. I have heard that WMF staff get requests for
> research
> > help on a regular basis, and the requests for assistance that are made on
> > the Analytics mailing list seem to be answered regularly, so I hope that
> > the same would happen on Research-l.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Pine
> > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 6:46 AM, Yiqing Hua  wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Lucas (cc'd) and I have been working on tools and corpora that
> transform
> > > wiki
> > > revision dumps into structured conversations; as part of this, we want
> to
> > > make sure any down-stream services and corpora that we develop respect
> the
> > > deleted (and suppressed) revisions; namely that we remove any copies we
> > > have
> > > of things deleted on Wikipedia.
> > >
> > > For that we need a way to:
> > > 1. get all revisions IDs that were deleted or suppressed (or all
> > > non-deleted
> > > and non-suppressed ones)
> > > 2. have a way to get new deletions or suppresions so that we can
> remove any
> > > copies that we have.
> > >
> > > What's the right infrastructure/APIs to use for this?
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > ___
> > > 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] Elicit New Editor Interest

[Pine W]

Hi Leila,

This looks interesting. I have a few questions.

1. Why are users being asked for their email addresses? This creates
privacy concerns regarding the handling of PII. I think that using
usernames would be preferable.

2. I'm unclear on whether the plan is to invite newbies to contact veterans
who may have edited similar pages. If that is the plan, I would strongly
encourage you to solicit veterans to sign up to opt in to this experiment.
Some veterans may be more willing than others to help newbies. Many veteran
editors have plenty of work on their agendas and I'm not sure that asking
them to take on yet more work is something that's a good idea. If they opt
in to the experiment, like mentors, then I think that would be okay within
the scope of this experiment, although I would be very cautious about
rolling that out on a large scale to thousands of veterans whose time is
very precious.

Thanks,

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 10:33 AM, Leila Zia  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> We just added a new formal collaboration with Ramtin Yazdanian from
> EPFL to develop, design and test models that can help us learn about
> New Editor Interests. While the applications of these models are
> numerous, we expect to use them at least in the line of research in
> addressing Wikipedia contributor diversity gaps.
>
> This research is aimed to address the cold start problem in Wikimedia
> projects, when a user enters the system and you have almost no
> information about the user and yet you want to engage with the user in
> the areas they're interested in. Please see project details at
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Voice_and_exit_
> in_a_voluntary_work_environment/Elicit_new_editor_interests
>
> Best,
> Leila
>
> --
> Leila Zia
> Senior Research Scientist, Lead
> 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] Building tools, services and datasets that respect deleted and suppressed revisions

[Pine W]

Hi Research-l,
I'm bumping this question because apparently no one has answered yet, and I
think that it's a good question that should get an answer. I would like for
third-party researchers who are trying to align their work with Wikimedia
policies and practices in their research to get the support that they need
to make that happen. I have heard that WMF staff get requests for research
help on a regular basis, and the requests for assistance that are made on
the Analytics mailing list seem to be answered regularly, so I hope that
the same would happen on Research-l.

Thanks,
Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 6:46 AM, Yiqing Hua  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Lucas (cc'd) and I have been working on tools and corpora that transform
> wiki
> revision dumps into structured conversations; as part of this, we want to
> make sure any down-stream services and corpora that we develop respect the
> deleted (and suppressed) revisions; namely that we remove any copies we
> have
> of things deleted on Wikipedia.
>
> For that we need a way to:
> 1. get all revisions IDs that were deleted or suppressed (or all
> non-deleted
> and non-suppressed ones)
> 2. have a way to get new deletions or suppresions so that we can remove any
> copies that we have.
>
> What's the right infrastructure/APIs to use for this?
>
> Thanks!
> ___
> 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] Presentation on UX design, mental models, and behavioral vs. survey data

[Pine W]

I thought that this video, published in May 2018, was somewhat interesting
and I am sharing it in case others are also interested. The presenter uses
a change of design of Wikipedia's front page search box from 2010 (see
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2010/06/15/usability-why-did-we-move-the-search-box/)
as an example, though I would hope that the lesson from this video isn't
that it's okay to frequently disrupt the workflows of existing users with
design changes regardless of the amount of complaints from existing users.
The main points that I drew from this presentation are that interfaces
should be intuitive and should have relatively light cognitive load. Those
points may sound obvious to experienced UX designers, but may be of
interest to people whose areas of expertise are in other domains.

I also appreciated that the presenter shared an example of a situation in
which people said one thing in surveys but behaved in the opposite way in
practice.

Here is the link to the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxzK4sWfvH8


Regards,

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

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

[Pine W]

Hi Research-l,

My impression is that volunteers on Commons and ENWP spend a lot of time on 
categorization. I have seen references to analyses of how categorization is 
done,  but I can't recall seeing an analysis of how much use readers make of 
categories on Commons and ENWP. My guess is that readers often use categories 
on Commons for media searches, but that ENWP categories are rarely used by 
readers, although maybe WMF Discovery uses categories to inform search results. 
Is there data that shows how extensively readers on ENWP and Commons use 
categories?

Thanks,Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] trip report: Wiki Indaba 2018 [partial]

[Pine W]

I have a suggestion.

Both WMF and the community are operating under resource constraints, and I
think that the question of whether and how WMF should resource the support
of additional projects versus current projects is a good one to have in the
context of the strategy discussion. Rather than try to work out that issue
here on Research-l, I suggest that the issue be flagged to Nicole Ebber for
inclusion in the strategy discussions.

Similarly, I think that the role of Wikidata in the Wikimedia universe
would be good to have in the context of the strategy process.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

[Wiki-research-l] Proportions of new Wikimedia users by program source

[Pine W]

Hi Research-l folks,

Is there a chart that shows the proportions of new users that register on
Wikimedia in association with individual campaigns like Wiki Loves
Monuments, chapter GLAM activities, education programs, etc?

I am particularly interested in knowing what percentage of new users are
likely to be unaffiliated with identifiable programs, and likely need to
learn how Wikimedia works using exclusively online resources and initially
without individualized help.

If this information is available for a variety of snapshots in time, and
for a variety of individual Wikimedia sites, that would be appreciated. If
this information is available with productivity and attrition information
for each group on each site, that would be even better.

Thanks,

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [OSM-talk] OSM science mailing list

[Pine W]

Forwarding.

Pine 


-- Forwarded message --
From: joost schouppe 
Date: Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 2:35 AM
Subject: [OSM-talk] OSM science mailing list
To: OpenStreetMap Belgium , Talk Openstreetmap <
t...@openstreetmap.org>, annou...@openstreetmap.org


Hi,

We have created a science mailing. That would be the place discuss details
of the implementation, if any, of our own survey engine. Apart from that,
go there to:

- talk about recent sciencetific research
- develop the OSM research agenda
- get feedback and support on your planned OSM surveys
- get feedback on your scientific plans and preliminary results from an
interested subset of OSM community members
- [insert your idea here]

Subscribe now :)
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/science

This list creation is a follow-up to the OSM-science-communication project
initiated by Peter Mooney, Frank Ostermann and myself. Info: https://lists.
openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2017-August/078524.html

We're also talking to OSMF to see if we can set up a common survey engine,
to have a place to centralize some of the many surveys taking place in the
OSM ecosystem. Info:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2018-January/004995.html

-- 
Joost Schouppe
OpenStreetMap  |
Twitter  | LinkedIn
 | Meetup


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

[Wiki-research-l] Wikiscan statistics tool for Wikimedia projects

[Pine W]

Wikiscan is an interesting tool for statistics fans. I suggest briefly
reading this IEG page
, then
playing with the tool on https://wikiscan.org/

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Wikimedia-l] Research Showcase Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC

[Pine W]

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for the info. Perhaps the statistics have changed since 2010. Are
you aware of any more recent studies?

It's entirely possible that the conference that I attended was an anomaly,
but in any case it would be good to have a more recent study (preferably
with a larger sample size and information about how sampling was done) if
that kind of information is available.

"Mapping parties" seem to be common in OSM, and if they're successful in
narrowing the gender gap that information might be of interest to Leila
given the kind of research that she's planning to do with trying to engage
cohorts of users in Wikimedia. If you know of research about about the
success of mapping parties with regards to diversity, it would be nice if
you could share.

Thanks,

Pine


On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 7:55 AM, Andrew Hall  wrote:

> Hi Pine,
>
> Thank you for sharing your experience at State of the Map USA. In the talk
> on Wednesday, I was referring to a survey of 426 OSM contributors by Haklay
> and Budhathoki [1] from 2010 where 96% of participants said they were male.
>
> References:
> 1. https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/
> 16461/Horizon%20March%202010%20(Haklay%20and%20Budhahtoki).pdf
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew
>
> > On Jul 26, 2017, at 5:06 PM, Pine W  wrote:
> >
> > For what it's worth, I noted that when I tended the State of the Map USA
> > conference last year, there seemed to be a *higher* representation of
> women
> > in the conference than there were at the WikiConference USA events that
> > I've attended. I was surprised to hear the presenter say that OSM has
> 95%+
> > male participation, and I'd like to know the origin of that number. I was
> > so impressed by the relatively high percentage of female participants at
> > State of the Map USA that I had a conversation with one of the organizers
> > about how OSM seemed to be much more successful than Wikimedia at
> engaging
> > female contributors. Perhaps there are at least some places in which OSM
> > has relatively good gender diversity.
> >
> > Pine
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Andy Mabbett  >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 25 July 2017 at 19:38, Sarah R  wrote:
> >>
> >>> Freedom versus Standardization: Structured Data Generation in a Peer
> >>> Production CommunityBy *Andrew Hall*
> >>
> >> There's some discussion of the talk , on the UK OSM mailing list:
> >>
> >>   https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2017-
> July/020401.html
> >>
> >> ___
> >> 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] [Announcement] Voice and exit in a voluntary work environment

[Pine W]

Jonathan, I didn't realize that there was another use for NEWT. (: It's a
little old though, and it appears to be specific to English Wikipedia, and
my personal feeling is that a need to disambiguate the editing interface
from an old research project is the lesser evil as compared to an acronym
that can't be easily pronounced.

Kerry, I think that until and unless WMF enables VE for talk pages (which I
hope that they will agree to experiment with doing), teaching new users to
edit talk pages with NWTE/NEWT is the best option available on wikis that
don't use Flow.

I'm sensitive to folks telling volunteers that we should be doing more
unpaid work, hence my admittedly strong reaction to your proposal about
mentoring. In an ideal world it would be nice to have more mentors, and I
think that adding paid staff to do some mentoring work would be a good use
of funds; the Wiki Ed Foundation seems to be successful with this approach,
and some affiliates also have a variety of training programs that they do
for Wikipedia editors and/or for others such as school teachers who will
then train others. I should also mention that WMF is developing training
for functionaries, and WMF has provided some grant or contract funding
projects where training is a focus such as the English Wikipedia Teahouse,
the Wikipedia Adventure, and the video series for which I'm largely
responsible. So it seems that WMF is sometimes willing to provide funding
for training, and I would encourage them to continue to do so.

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Announcement] Voice and exit in a voluntary work environment

[Pine W]

Hi Kerry,

Thanks for the comments. I hope that Leila will respond. I have a few
thoughts:

1. Have you tried the New WikiText Editor (NWTE, which I want to call NEWT
so that it's easily pronounceable), particularly on talk pages? I think
that new users will find it to be considerably easier to use than "pure"
wikimarkup.

2. I agree with the sentiment about VE on talk pages. Perhaps you could ask
the WMF folks if there has been further thought about enabling VE on talk
pages. The last time that I asked the answer was "no" and the evolutionary
paths for talk pages are planned to be NWTE/NEWT and Flow.

3. I agree that more mentoring of newbies would be good, but there is
finite human resource capacity among the more experienced editors and those
editors already have plenty of work. The Wiki Ed Foundation and other
organizations are increasingly providing paid staff time to mentor
Wikimedians, and I think that this is a more realistic option than
lecturing the existing volunteer community that we should be doing yet more
work for free. WMF has plenty of money and it seems to me that spending
some of that money on training and mentoring programs is probably
worthwhile.

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Wikimedia-l] Research Showcase Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC

[Pine W]

For what it's worth, I noted that when I tended the State of the Map USA
conference last year, there seemed to be a *higher* representation of women
in the conference than there were at the WikiConference USA events that
I've attended. I was surprised to hear the presenter say that OSM has 95%+
male participation, and I'd like to know the origin of that number. I was
so impressed by the relatively high percentage of female participants at
State of the Map USA that I had a conversation with one of the organizers
about how OSM seemed to be much more successful than Wikimedia at engaging
female contributors. Perhaps there are at least some places in which OSM
has relatively good gender diversity.

Pine


On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Andy Mabbett 
wrote:

> On 25 July 2017 at 19:38, Sarah R  wrote:
>
> > Freedom versus Standardization: Structured Data Generation in a Peer
> > Production CommunityBy *Andrew Hall*
>
> There's some discussion of the talk , on the UK OSM mailing list:
>
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2017-July/020401.html
>
> ___
> 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] [Announcement] Voice and exit in a voluntary work environment

[Pine W]

This sounds like a great project. Forwarding.

Pine


On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Leila Zia  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> With the start of the new fiscal year in Wikimedia Foundation on July
> 1, the Research team has officially started the work on Program 12:
> Growing contributor diversity. [1] Here are a few
> announcements/pointers about this program and the research and work
> that will be going to it:
>
> * We aim to keep the research documentation for this project on the
> corresponding research page on meta. [2]
> * Research tasks are hard to break down and track in task-tracking
> systems. This being said, any task that we can break down and track
> will be documented under the corresponding Epic task on Phabricator.
> [3]
> * The goals for this Program for July-September 2017 (Quarter 1) are
> captured on MediaWiki. [4] (The Phabricator epic will be updated with
> corresponding tasks as we start working on them.)
> * Our three formal collaborators (cc-ed) will contribute to this
> program: Jérôme Hergueux from ETH, Paul Seabright from TSE, and Bob
> West from EPFL. We are thankful to these people who have agreed to
> spend their time and expertise on this project in the coming year, and
> to those of you who have already worked with us as we were shaping the
> proposal for this project and are planning to continue your
> contributions to this program. :)
> * I act as the point of contact for this research in Wikimedia
> Foundation. Please feel free to reach out to me (directly, if it
> cannot be shared publicly) if you have comments/questions about the
> project in the coming year.
>
> Best,
> Leila
>
>
> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_
> Annual_Plan/2017-2018/Final/Programs/Technology#Program_
> 12:_Grow_contributor_diversity
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Voice_and_exit_
> in_a_voluntary_work_environment
> [3] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T166083
> [4] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Technology/
> Goals/2017-18_Q1#Research
>
> --
> Leila Zia
> Senior Research Scientist
> 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

[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Wikimedia-l] [fellowship] Opportunity for people working on "open projects that support a healthy Internet."

[Pine W]

Forwarding.

Pine


-- Forwarded message --
From: Melody Kramer 
Date: Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 2:26 PM
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] [fellowship] Opportunity for people working on "open
projects that support a healthy Internet."
To: wikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org


Hi all,

I wanted to pass along an opportunity that I saw earlier today via Twitter:
https://medium.com/read-write-participate/work-in-the-open-
with-mozilla-1410be0a83b2

It sets up people working on "open projects that support a healthy
Internet" with a mentor, a cohort of like-minded people from all over the
world, and a trip to Mozfest, which is a London-based open Internet
conference I've attended/presented at in past years and found really
mind-expanding due to the cross-disciplinary conversations that take place.

You can see previous projects here: https://mozilla.github.
io/leadership-training/round-3/projects/ — it looks like there's quite a
broad cross-section and many of the projects across the movement might be
applicable. The post notes participants will learn about "best practices
for project setup and communication, tools for collaboration, community
building, and running events."

Thank you to Leila for suggesting I pass this along to this listserv. Feel
free to share it broadly.


- Mel


--
Melody Kramer 
Senior Audience Development Manager
Read a random featured article from Wikipedia!


mkra...@wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: wikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Recognizing domain experts contribution to Wikipedia

[Pine W]

Stuart reminds me of a point that I forgot to mention. While I believe that
directly contributing to Wikipedia is rarely beneficial for academics' CVs,
having one's work cited on Wikipedia might be viewed positively. Perhaps
one way that academics might be incentivized to contribute more to
Wikipedia is by encouraging them to post references to their works on talk
pages when the academics think that their work could be beneficial to
articles.

Pine


On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 4:14 AM, Stuart A. Yeates  wrote:

> It is worth remembering that via the orcid identifier in the authority
> control template, the is now a standard linked-data mechanism for
> researchers to identify themselves. I have no idea whether anyone is
> looking at that though.
>
> Cheers
> Stuart
>
> On Saturday, July 8, 2017, Pine W  wrote:
>
> > Hi Alex,
> >
> > I believe that this is a subject of interest to the community. It would
> > indeed be helpful to know the percentage of people with graduate-level
> > academic qualifications who regularly make contributions on English
> > Wikipedia and other language editions of Wikipedia.
> >
> > I'd suggest thinking about the following:
> >
> > 1. In general, academics don't receive benefits to their C.V. from
> > contributing to Wikipedia. My guess is that this is a major reason why
> > relatively few academics contribute to Wikipedia on a regular basis. It
> > might be interesting if you can produce data that confirms a hypothesis
> > like this.
> >
> > 2. I would encourage changing the term that you use from "recognized
> domain
> > experts" to "people with graduate-level academic qualifications". In the
> > U.S., in many domains, there are multiple ways for people to gain
> > reputations of being experts in domain; an academic qualification is
> often
> > not required, although it may be helpful.
> >
> > Pine
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:20 AM, Alex Yarovoy  > > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > I'm a Master student working under the supervision of Drs. Arazy and
> > Minkov
> > > (Haifa U)
> > > My research explores the extent to which  "recognized domain experts"
> > > contribute to Wikipedia.
> > > (I use a narrow definition for "recognized domain experts" to include
> > those
> > > with academic qualifications in the relevant topic).
> > > I manually tracked these experts using a variety of sources, and then
> use
> > > machine learning methods for automatically identifying domain experts
> > > within Wikipedia editors.
> > >
> > > I'm writing to explore whether this research is on interest to the
> > > community and to learn if other people have already tackled this
> research
> > > question.
> > >
> > > Thank you in advance for pointing me to relevant research projects
> > > Alex
> > > ___
> > > 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
> >
>
>
> --
> --
> ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
> ___
> 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] Recognizing domain experts contribution to Wikipedia

[Pine W]

Hi Alex,

I believe that this is a subject of interest to the community. It would
indeed be helpful to know the percentage of people with graduate-level
academic qualifications who regularly make contributions on English
Wikipedia and other language editions of Wikipedia.

I'd suggest thinking about the following:

1. In general, academics don't receive benefits to their C.V. from
contributing to Wikipedia. My guess is that this is a major reason why
relatively few academics contribute to Wikipedia on a regular basis. It
might be interesting if you can produce data that confirms a hypothesis
like this.

2. I would encourage changing the term that you use from "recognized domain
experts" to "people with graduate-level academic qualifications". In the
U.S., in many domains, there are multiple ways for people to gain
reputations of being experts in domain; an academic qualification is often
not required, although it may be helpful.

Pine


On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:20 AM, Alex Yarovoy  wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I'm a Master student working under the supervision of Drs. Arazy and Minkov
> (Haifa U)
> My research explores the extent to which  "recognized domain experts"
> contribute to Wikipedia.
> (I use a narrow definition for "recognized domain experts" to include those
> with academic qualifications in the relevant topic).
> I manually tracked these experts using a variety of sources, and then use
> machine learning methods for automatically identifying domain experts
> within Wikipedia editors.
>
> I'm writing to explore whether this research is on interest to the
> community and to learn if other people have already tackled this research
> question.
>
> Thank you in advance for pointing me to relevant research projects
> Alex
> ___
> 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] Fwd: [Analytics] Dropping MoodBar extension tables from all wikis

[Pine W]

+1 to Jonathan's comment.

Pine


On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Jonathan Morgan 
wrote:

> I hate the idea of deleting research data. Esp. since the Moodbar data
> contains insights into new editor motivations and pain points.
>
> Would it be possible to place historical research datasets like this on
> another server, or at least in a dump file somewhere, so that they're still
> available? I know we can't release the Moodbar data publicly (because it
> was an open text field on the internet), but still...
>
> - J
>
> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Giovanni Luca Ciampaglia <
> glciamp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I did some research together with Dario on whether MoodBar had a positive
> > effect on retention. The findings were positive and were presented at
> CSCW
> > in 2015:
> >
> > https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2675181&CFID=957153849&;
> CFTOKEN=56379720
> > (arxiv
> > link here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.1496)
> >
> > My only concern is whether somebody wanted to replicate the results of
> that
> > paper; I haven't received any such request so far. And I guess that all
> > those who could be possibly interested in doing so would probably be on
> > this list anyway. So I guess that if there is no objection I am OK with
> the
> > deletion too.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Giovanni
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 4:16 PM Dan Andreescu 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Forwarding this to more research people.  In case anyone needs to do
> > > research on moodbar, get in touch with us, those tables will be deleted
> > > otherwise.
> > >
> > >
> > > -- Forwarded message --
> > > From: Nuria Ruiz 
> > > Date: Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 4:08 PM
> > > Subject: [Analytics] Dropping MoodBar extension tables from all wikis
> > > To: "A mailing list for the Analytics Team at WMF and everybody who has
> > an
> > > interest in Wikipedia and analytics." 
> > > Cc: Manuel Arostegui 
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello!
> > >
> > > This is an FYI that ModBar extension has been undeployed and, as such,
> > its
> > > tables will be removed from all wikis.  See
> > https://phabricator.wikimedia.
> > > org/T153033
> > >
> > > It looks like this extension sprang some interest in the past [1] and
> > there
> > > were some research projects about it. Please let us know (before August
> > > 7th) whether we should keep the tables for any reason.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > >
> > > Nuria
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [1]
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:MoodBar/First_
> month_of_activity
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Analytics mailing list
> > > analyt...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
> > > ___
> > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > >
> > --
> > Giovanni Luca Ciampaglia    *∙*   Assistant
> > Research Scientist, Indiana University
> > SocInfo 2017    *∙*   Submit NOW
> >  !!!
> > ___
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Jonathan T. Morgan
> Senior Design Researcher
> Wikimedia Foundation
> User:Jmorgan (WMF) 
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Analytics] Wikipedia Detox: Scaling up our understanding of harassment on Wikipedia

[Pine W]

On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 2:49 AM, Kerry Raymond 
wrote:

> No right to be offended? To say to someone "you don't have the right to be
> offended" seems pretty offensive in itself. It seems to imply that their
> cultural norms are somehow inferior or unacceptable.
>

I'm not sure that I worded my comment clearly as I would like. I would like
to reduce the intensity and frequency of toxic behavior, but there's some
difficulty in defining what is toxic or unacceptable. If person X says
something that person Y finds offensive, that in and of itself doesn't mean
that person X was being intentionally malicious. Cultural norms and
personal sensitivities vary widely, and there is a danger that attempts to
reduce conflict will be done in such a way that freedom of expression is
suppressed. As an example, there are statements in British English that I
am told are highly offensive, but to me as an American seem mild when I
hear them through an American cultural lens. Having an AI, or humans,
attempt to police the degree to which a statement is offensive seems like a
minefield. Perhaps a better way to approach the situation is to try to a
look at intent, which I think is similar to your next point:


>
> With the global reach of Wikipedia, there are obviously many points of
> view on what is or isn't offensive in what circumstances. Offence may not
> be intended at first, but, if after a person is told their behaviour is
> offensive and they persist with that behaviour, I think it is reasonable to
> assume that they intend to offend. Which is why the data showing there is a
> group of experienced users involved in numerous personal attacks demands
> some human investigation of their behaviour.
>

I think that looking at intent, rather than solely at the content of what
was said, sounds like a good idea. However, I'm not sure that I'd always
agree that if person X is told that statement A is offensive to person Y
that person X should necessarily stop, because what person X is saying may
be seem reasonable to person X (for example "It's OK to eat meat") but
highly offensive to person Y. I think maybe a more nuanced approach would
be to look at what person X's intent is in saying "It's OK to eat meat": is
the person expressing or arguing for their views in good faith, or are they
acting in bad faith and intentionally trying to provoke person Y?
Fortunately, in my experience, the cases where people are being malicious
are usually clearer, such that admins and others are not usually called on
to evaluate whether a statement was OK. "Calling names" in any language
seems to not go over very well, and I think that most of us who have a tool
to create blocks would be willing to use that tool if a conversation
degenerated to that point. Unfortunately, like you, my perception in the
past was that there were some experienced users on English Wikipedia (and
perhaps other languages as well) where needlessly provocative behavior was
tolerated; I would like to think that the standards for civility are being
raised.

I'm aware of WMF's research into the frequency of personal attacks; I
wonder whether there are charts of how the frequency is changing over time.


> Similarly for a person offended, if there is a genuinely innocent
> interpretation to something they found offensive and that is explained to
> them (perhaps by third parties), I think they need to be accepting that no
> offence was intended on that occasion. Obviously we need a bit of give and
> take. But I think there have to be limits on the repeated behaviour (either
> in giving the offence or taking the offence).
>

In general, I agree.

There are some actions for which I could support "one strike and you're
out"; I once kicked someone out of an IRC channel for uncivil behavior with
little (perhaps no) warning because the situation seemed so clear to me,
and no one complained about my decision. I think that in many cases that
it's clear whether someone is making a personal attack, but some cases are
not so clear, and I want to be careful about the degree to which WMF
encourages administrators to rely on an AI to make decisions. Even if an AI
is trained extensively in with native language speakers, there can be
significant differences in how a statement is interpreted.

Pine


>
> 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-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Analytics] Wikipedia Detox: Scaling up our understanding of harassment on Wikipedia

[Pine W]

Kerry, I think that I agree with you. Awhile back, my impression from
English Wikipedia arbitration pages was that there is a relatively small
number of users who stir up trouble repeatedly and are sometimes sanctioned
but rarely blocked. I don't want to speak for the Arbitration Committee,
and since Arbcom changes membership periodically I'm reluctant to criticize
current arbcom members for decisions of the committee in prior years. My
impression is that over the years Arbcom has become more willing to
sanction administrators who use their admin tools in ways that Arbcom feels
are not okay, which I think is progress, but there's much more besides
dealing with problematic administrators that ideally would be done to
address incivility, personal attacks, and harassment.

That brings me to Chris' email, and unfortunately I don't have answers for
most of his points. Differing interpretations and values are likely to be a
fact of life in the Wikiverse regardless of good intentions. I think that
some of us have more emotional armor than others, and some of us are more
willing than others to participate in uncomfortable or contentious
discussions. Similarly, people have a variety of emotional triggers that,
from my perspective, have little to do with reason and a lot to do with
other factors, some of which we probably don't control any more than we
control our autonomic reflexes. I don't think it's other people's
responsibilities to try to delicately work around someone's reflexes (which
I would guess vary significantly from person to person and are often
unpredictable), but neither should one intentionally try to trigger someone
else, and people who accidentally overreact when triggered should apologize
for doing so (I can recall making such an apology myself on one occasion,
and I think I've gotten better over the years about handling myself in
difficult situations). Public discourse in the Wikiverse, in politics, and
in any number of other requirements requires one to have a certain amount
of willingness to take risks and hear things that we might not want to hear
and might find offensive. In attempting to reduce the frequency and
intensity of personal attacks and harassment, I think that we need to be
careful that we don't go so far as to say that people "have a right not to
be offended", since others' beliefs and statements are very likely to seem
different or strange or alienating from time to time. However, I also hope
that we can reduce some of the more aggressive behavior for which I think
there is consensus has no purpose in Wikimedia that could be compatible --
or at least not opposed to -- Wikimedia's goals.

That brings me back to the training of the AI, and what it will be flagging
for admins to review. I recall getting the impression from Maggie's
presentation at a metrics meeting that the AI was catching some edits that
come across to me as very likely to meet the ENWP definition of a personal
attack, and I think that having an AI that could help admins might indeed
be useful. However, there's another dimension to this problem which we
haven't addressed, which is the limited human resource capacity of the
admin corps, and the limited number of individuals who are willing to spend
their free time policing Wikimedia and dealing with controversial or even
dangerous situations. So I think that the AI, and attempts to detoxify
Wikimedia, if designed well, can indeed be good -- but I can't help but
wonder if they will be insufficient unless the capacity of the admin corps
with skilled and selfless administrators is also increased in proportion to
the need, and I'm not sure what the solution to that problem will be. Human
resources are constraints throughout the Wikiverse, and I think that they
may be a problem with detoxification efforts as well.

Chris, returning to your point about emotional literacy: I don't know how
to address that systemically, although perhaps training might be
beneficial. I get the impression that in the western world, police officers
and military personnel (who seem to be disproportionately male, although
perhaps lightly less so than Wikipedia's population) are increasingly
trained in emotional resilience, communications, and other psychological
issues. Perhaps training is something that we could think about doing on a
large scale, although that would be complicated. WMF has already started
some limited training for functionaries, and I think that expanding
training might indeed be useful. Training probably won't be a cure, but it
might help to move the needle a bit. I would encourage WMF to consider
doing research into what kind of training might be beneficial for
Wikimedia's social environment, and how best to deliver that training, on a
large scale.

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Analytics] Wikipedia Detox: Scaling up our understanding of harassment on Wikipedia

[Pine W]

I'm glad that work on detecting and addressing harassment are moving
forward.

At the same time, I'd appreciate getting a more precise understanding of
how WMF is defining the word "harassment". There are legal definitions and
dictionary definitions, but I don't think that there is One Definition to
Rule Them All. I'm hoping that WMF will be careful to distinguish debate
and freedom to express opinions from harassment; we may disagree with
minority or fringe views (even views that are offensive to some) but that
doesn't necessarily mean that we should use policy and admin tools instead
of persuasion and other tools (such as content policies about verifiability
and notability) to address them (and in some cases Wikipedia may not be a
good place for these discussions). Other distinctions include (1) the
distinction between a personal attack and harassment (
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/02/07/scaling-understanding-of-harassment/
appears to have equivocated the two definitions, while English Wikipedia
policy makes distinctions between them), and (2) the distinction between a
personal attack and an evidence-based critique.

Also note that definitions of what constitutes an attack may vary between
languages; for example an expression which sounds insulting to someone in
one place, culture, or language may mean something very different or
relatively benign in a different place, culture, or language. I had an
experience myself when I made a statement to someone which from my
perspective was a statement of fact, and the other party took it as an
insult. I don't apologize for what I said since from my perspective it was
valid, and the other party has not apologized for their reaction, but the
point is that defining what constitutes a personal attack or harassment can
be a very subjective business and I'm not sure to what extent I would trust
an AI to evaluate what constitutes a personal attack or harassment in a
wide range of contexts. I get the impression that WMF intends to flag
potentially problematic edits for admins to review, which I think could be
a good thing, but I hope that there is great care being invested in how the
AI is being trained to define personal attacks and harassment, and I
wouldn't necessarily want admins to be encouraged to substitute the opinion
of an AI for their own.

I understand the desire to tone down some of the more heated discourse
around Wikipedia for the sake of improving our user population statistics,
and at the same time I'm hoping that we can continue to have very strong
support for freedom of expression and differences of opinion. This is a
difficult balancing act. I think that moving the needle a bit in the
direction of more civility would be a good thing, but I get the impression
that there are plenty of edits that are blatant personal attacks that we
don't need to move the needle a lot, and could instead focus on more
rapidly and thoroughly addressing instances where there is ample evidence
that people's intentions were malicious.

Pine


On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Leila Zia  wrote:

> Hi Dan,
>
> Thanks for your note. :)
>
> On the Research end, Dario is still a big supporter of the efforts
> around research to help us better understand harassment (as you
> noticed in our commitments to the annual plan) and with Ellery's
> departure, I've been helping him a bit to make sure we can move
> forward on this front. More specifically, and while we're continuing
> the research with Nithum and Lucas who were Ellery's collaborators on
> the Detox project, we recently initiated
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Study_of_
> harassment_and_its_impact
> with Cristian and Yiqing from Cornell University. We are very excited
> about this new collaboration as Cristian has years of experience in
> spaces that are very relevant to the socio-technical problems related
> to harassment. I think you will enjoy reading that page which signal
> the early directions of the research.
>
> The whole harassment research team meets every 2 weeks, if you're
> curious what's going on on this front and on our end and you want to
> listen in, please ping me. And, thank you for the offer to help. We
> may take you up on that. :)
>
> Best,
> Leila
>
> --
> Leila Zia
> Senior Research Scientist
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 7:55 PM, Toby Negrin 
> wrote:
> > Hi Dan -- we are actually in touch with Detox as part of the Community
> > Health initiative. They are doing their first quarterly check in this
> > quarter so expect some updates then. Ping me offlist if you want more
> info.
> >
> > -Toby
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Dan Andreescu <
> dandree...@wikimedia.org>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm reflecting on this work and how awesome it was.  I see that it's
> >> continued in our annual plan under the Community Health Initiative, but
> I
> >> am afraid it's taking a secondary role without Ellery and others to
> drive
> >> it.  On
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.or

[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Design] Design in the Era of the Algorithm

[Pine W]

Perhaps of interest.

Pine


-- Forwarded message --
From: Chris Koerner 
Date: Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 8:31 AM
Subject: [Design] Design in the Era of the Algorithm
To: des...@lists.wikimedia.org


Josh Clark on design principles for addressing flaws in machine learning.
(via waxy.org)\

"The answer machines have an overconfidence problem. It’s not only a
data-science problem that the algorithm returns bad conclusions. It’s a
problem of presentation: the interface suggests that there’s one true
answer, offering it up with a confidence that is unjustified.

So this is a design problem, too. The presentation fails to set appropriate
expectations or context, and instead presents a bad answer with
matter-of-fact assurance. As we learn to present machine-originated
content, we face a very hard question: how might we add some productive
humility to these interfaces to temper their overconfidence?

I have ideas."

https://bigmedium.com/speaking/design-in-the-era-of-the-algorithm.html

Yours,
Chris Koerner
Community Liaison - Discovery
Wikimedia Foundation

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

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

[Pine W]

Hi Amy,

That sounds like a great topic for research.

As an extension of your planned scope, I would encourage you to do some
comparisons between ENWP's RfC process and those on other Wikimedia sites,
as there are some noteworthy differences among sites, both among language
variants of Wikipedia and among different projects.

You might also want to research how consensus has been defined over time
and in different contexts, and what the outcomes have been in situations
where there has been "no consensus".

Pine


On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Amy Zhang  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> We are preparing to conduct some research into the process of how Requests
> for Comments (RfCs) get discussed and closed. This work is further
> described in the following Wikimedia page: https://meta.wikimedia.o
> rg/wiki/Research:Discussion_summarization_and_decision_support_with_Wikum
>
> To begin, we are planning to do a round of interviews with people who
> participate in RfCs in English Wikipedia, including frequent closers,
> infrequent closers, and people who participate in but don't close RfCs. We
> will be asking them about how they go about closing RfCs and their opinions
> on how the overall process could be improved. We are also creating a
> database of all the RfCs on English Wikipedia that have gone through a
> formal closure process and parsing their conversations.
>
> While planning the interviews, we thought that the information that we
> gather could be of interest to the Wikimedia community, so we wanted to
> open it up and ask if there was anything you would be interested in
> learning about RfCs or RfC closure from people who participate in them.
> Also, if you know of existing work in this area, please let us know.
>
> Thank you!
>
> Amy
>
>
> --
> Amy X. Zhang | Ph.D. student at MIT CSAIL | http://people.csail.mit.edu/
> axz
> | @amyxzh
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

[Wiki-research-l] Video demos of upcoming changes to edit review / RC patrol

[Pine W]

I'd like to highlight two videos (some people may have already seen these)
that demo upcoming changes to edit review / RC patrol that take advantage
of ORES. I feel that that the changes look promising, and I hope that RC
patrollers, Teahouse hosts, newbie adopters, and others will find that the
changes make their work easier. I also hope for improved retention of
good-faith contributors.

0. A succinct overview by Joe Matazzoni (WMF):
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ANew-feature_demo%E2%80%94smart_Recent_Changes_filtering_with_ORES.webm

1. A more extensive overview, also by Joe, including valuable context, from
the WMF Metrics Meeting for May 2017:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAGwQdLyFb4 between 15:00 and 28:15.

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Essay about fake news, algorithms, social bots, and more

[Pine W]

Agreed that what we're seeing are Internet-enabled implementations of old
practices. I think that there has been a recent renewal of awareness of how
effective these dark arts can be at generating revenue and perhaps
affecting political systems.

Over the years, a number of people and organizations have tried to
manipulate the neutrality of Wikipedia content for political, financial, or
PR advantage. I have the impression that the community's human resources
capacity and technical tools are currently insufficient in comparison to
the scale of the problems. I'm hoping that some of the tools that are being
developed as a part of the anti-harassment initiative will help a little.
I'm also thinking that a good exercise for students in Wikipedia in
Education classes would be to identify content that is noncompliant with
neutrality and verifiability standards, and either change that content
themselves or flag it for review by more experienced editors.

Pine


On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 5:53 AM, James Salsman  wrote:

> Pine wrote:
> >
> > I'm finding it encouraging to see that a number of researchers and
> > journalists are taking these problems seriously, trying to understand
> them,
> > and trying to improve the situation.
> > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/tech/misinformation-on-
> social-media-could-outfox-technical-solutions-for-now
>
> I'm encouraged by the studies, but confused about why the fake news
> phenomenon is considered novel, rather than continuations of age-old
> disinformation, yellow journalism, aggressive public relations,
> manufactured consent, astroturfing, propaganda, and deceptive
> marketing. There's nothing new about it other than the term.
>
> ___
> 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] Essay about fake news, algorithms, social bots, and more

[Pine W]

I'm finding it encouraging to see that a number of researchers and
journalists are taking these problems seriously, trying to understand them,
and trying to improve the situation.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/tech/misinformation-on-social-media-could-outfox-technical-solutions-for-now

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Project exploring automated classification of article importance

[Pine W]

Hi Nettrom,

A few resources from English Wikipedia regarding article importance as
ranked by humans:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vital_articles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Release_Version_Criteria#Priority_of_topic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_assessment#Statistics

I infer from the ENWP Wikicup's scoring protocol that for purposes of the
competition, an article's "importance" is loosely inferred from the number
of language editions of Wikipedia in which the article appears:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring#Bonus_points.

HTH,

Pine


On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Morten Wang  wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> I am currently working with Aaron Halfaker and Dario Taraborelli at the
> Wikimedia Foundation on a project exploring automated classification of
> article importance. Our goal is to characterize the importance of an
> article within a given context and design a system to predict a relative
> importance rank. We have a project page on meta[1] and welcome comments or
> thoughts on our talk page. You can of course also respond here on
> wiki-research-l, or send me an email.
>
> Before moving on to model-building I did a fairly thorough literature
> review, finding a myriad of papers spanning several disciplines. We have a
> draft literature review also up on meta[2], which should give you a
> reasonable introduction to the topic. Again, comments or thoughts (e.g.
> papers we’ve missed) on the talk page, mailing list, or through email are
> welcome.
>
> Links:
>
>1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Automated_
>classification_of_article_importance
> classification_of_article_importance>
>2. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Studies_of_Importance
>
> Regards,
> Morten
> [[User:Nettrom]] aka [[User:SuggestBot]]
> ___
> 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] Reliability in the era of alternative facts and information warfare

[Pine W]

A thought-provoking newspaper column about a University of Washington
professor's troubling findings:
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/uw-professor-the-information-war-is-real-and-were-losing-it/

Quoting briefly from the article:

"Starbird is publishing her paper as a sort of warning. The information
networks we’ve built are almost perfectly designed to exploit psychological
vulnerabilities to rumor."

"Your brain tells you ‘Hey, I got this from three different sources,’ ” she
says. “But you don’t realize it all traces back to the same place, and
might have even reached you via bots posing as real people. If we think of
this as a virus, I wouldn’t know how to vaccinate for it.”

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Editors: research on transitions, learning over time, leaving

[Pine W]

I like Jonathan's suggestion about logging edit conflicts and trying to
figure out the correlation between edit conflicts and people leaving. Might
also be worth looking into how reversions, deletion notifications, and
giant warning templates also affect how likely people are to continue
editing.

There certainly are some POV-pushing editors (e.g. biographers of
non-notable businesspeople, academics, artists, or political candidates)
and in my opinion we are right to prevent from contaminating mainspace with
marketing materials. On the other hand I've seen some overzealous
patrollers make errors in being aggressive to good-faith contributors.

The last time I checked, there were efforts on ENWP to increase the skills
of patrollers and AFC reviewers, and I hope that those produce the desired
effects. Research into this would be beneficial.

Pine


On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 2:01 AM, Jonathan Cardy  wrote:

> Some of these things are more difficult to test than others, and indeed
> some are easier to resolve than others. I'm pretty sure that we lose a lot
> of new editors due to edit conflicts. I suspect we can define the people
> who become active editors as being the people who learn how to resolve edit
> conflicts without losing their edit. Unfortunately there are no public logs
> of edit conflicts, but it should be possible to create such logs and test
> how predictive they are of people stopping editing. If such research
> produced the expected result that this was one of the major reasons why we
> lose editors, then there are some minor fixes that have been languishing
> for years in phabricator and its predecessors so we could easily halve the
> number of edit conflicts. If the research showed that edit conflicts
> weren't driving people away from the pedia then we would have learned
> something surprising, and that is always a good thing.
>
> At the other end of the transition scale we have a very very long tail of
> occasional editors. I suspect there is a large group of people among them
> who think of themselves as Wikipedia users but who will fix the odd typo or
> other error if they come across it. I'm assuming such individual editors
> now edit more rarely as they encounter fewer typos etc on Wikipedia. Rather
> than worry that these editors are editing more rarely, I would like to find
> a way of measuring such a group that lets us count their finding fewer
> typos per hundred hours of reading as a positive sign of quality
> improvement rather than as a decline in editing numbers.
>
> Regards
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> On 23 Mar 2017, at 06:06, Kerry Raymond  wrote:
>
> >> A few years ago the WMF did a survey of former editors, partly to
> >> learn why they'd left. One of the most common responses was "I haven't
> left yet".
> >
> > With the benefit of hindsight (a wonderful thing), that might be a bad
> way to have asked the question. A better way might have been to ask why
> they are no longer active and what circumstances/change would be likely to
> make them active again. What we really want to know if the reasons for
> inactivity are internal/external to Wikipedia and whether the conditions
> for re-engagement are internal/external to Wikipedia. And for the internal
> ones, we'd like to know more specifically what they are.
> >
> > "I haven't left yet, but as soon as my new baby has started school, I
> might have the time for Wikipedia again" (i.e. the cause of inactivity  and
> return to activity is outside of Wikipedia's control).  There is not a lot
> Wikipedia can do about such a contributors.
> >
> > "I left because I was sick and tired of the unpleasant way people
> behave, but I enjoyed contributing otherwise and would do so again if the
> culture was a lot nicer" is something that WP has some control over but not
> something you can fix in an afternoon.
> >
> > "I left because I just found it too hard, I kept forgetting when to use
> [[ and when to use {{ and I never figured out that  thing" is someone
> that we could potentially re-engage on the spot by saying "hey, try the
> Visual Editor!".
> >
> > Or maybe "I haven't left yet" is more literally true than we think. It
> is possible that the person is still active on Wikipedia but under a
> different user name or as an IP so they just appear to have become inactive
> under their former user name. If a person has had some unpleasant
> experiences on Wikipedia and that is why they became inactive, there are a
> lot of good reasons why they might not like to return under the same user
> name. Wikipedia has an infinitely long memory for things like bans and
> blocks and watch lists last forever. If you got yourself in trouble
> previously but you want to start afresh, you probably want to create a new
> account. If you had bad experiences with some other user who was regularly
> unpleasant to you, you would want a new account as they can watch your User
> page and Talk page forever to detect if you ever return. *Changing* your
> user name does

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Retention of Wikimedians for the long term

[Pine W]

Following up: Jana and I plan to have an off-list conversation in May about
scheduling a public conversation for June or July. (:

Pine


On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Pine W  wrote:

>
> Jana, would you be willing to have a conversation in June or July about
> your research? I read it awhile ago and I've been pondering how to best
> apply it to ENWP. Perhaps we could have a Hangout meeting? I'd be glad to
> have the meeting be public, in a similar style to a Research office hour,
> because there's no reason that the conversation needs to be private and
> other people might be interested in participating or listening. I'm
> thinking about how I could make use of your research in combination with
> what I'm likely to be doing over the summer with the LearnWiki project.
>
> Pine
>
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Retention of Wikimedians for the long term

[Pine W]

Jana, would you be willing to have a conversation in June or July about
your research? I read it awhile ago and I've been pondering how to best
apply it to ENWP. Perhaps we could have a Hangout meeting? I'd be glad to
have the meeting be public, in a similar style to a Research office hour,
because there's no reason that the conversation needs to be private and
other people might be interested in participating or listening. I'm
thinking about how I could make use of your research in combination with
what I'm likely to be doing over the summer with the LearnWiki project.

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