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

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello Andrew,

I am not quite sure if this is what you are looking for. A general
framework for Wikipedia research... I wonder how general that can be.
Some authors have tried to make use of systems theory, but this is not
what I would recommend.
It all depends what your research is about, so the framework would
come from media science? computer science? social science?
linguistics? etc.

A book I that I found useful for my thought process was this one:

Jerome Kagan: The Three Cultures. Natural Sciences, Social Sciences,
and the Humanities in the 21st Century. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge et.al. 2009.

It reminded me of the different approaches that are common in
different disciplines.

In "Wikis und die Wikipedia verstehen" I have written some lines about
it, here in a rough semi-automatic translation. See below.

Kind regards
Ziko

>>
Kagan speaks of "three cultures" that offer different approaches to
reality. The three cultures differ in which main questions are asked
in a science, which sources are collected, and what control one has
over the circumstances under which evidence is collected, to what
degree one generalizes, to what extent one takes into account
historical phenomena, and what importance one attaches to ethical
values. Kagan suspects that humanists and social scientists are more
similar to each other in their ideas and methods than they are to the
natural scientists (Kagan 2009: 2/3). If necessary, one can speak of a
socio-cultural approach.

Natural scientists, according to Kagan, are concerned with predicting
and explaining natural phenomena. One observes the material in a
controlled way in experiments and works in both small and large
groups. Scholars in the Humanities are interested in how people react
to events and what meaning they ascribe to an experience. Historical
circumstances and the influence of the ethical are of the highest
importance to them. They usually work alone and delight in
"semantically coherent arguments described in elegant prose." Social
scientists are concerned with the predictability and explanation of
human behavior (ibid.: 4/5).

In this book, therefore, we distinguish between the following three
levels or dimensions in which wiki-related phenomena take place or can
be described.

- The technical dimension refers to the technical and scientific
subjects, including subjects from computer science and mathematics.
One focus is the wiki as a technical medium including user accounts
and pages.
- The cultural dimension deals with typical humanities issues,
especially with regard to the wiki content.
- The (human) social dimension is concerned with the social relations
between the actors. This communicative dimension is to be understood
comprehensively, and it deals not only with questions of the actual
social sciences, but also of law and politics.
<<




Am Do., 3. Feb. 2022 um 17:28 Uhr schrieb Andrew Green :
>
> Hi all,
>
> I hope this is the right place to ask this question!
>
> I was wondering if folks who are doing (or are interested in) research
> about Wikipedia might like to share texts that they feel best describe
> the general research frameworks they use (or might like to use).
>
> I'd love to hear about any texts you like, regardless of format
> (textbook, paper, general reference, blog post, etc.).
>
> It seems a lot of work about Wikipedia uses approaches from
> Computational Social Science. The main references I have for that are
> [1] and [2].
>
> I'm especially interested in links between Computational Social Science
> and frameworks from more traditional social sciences and cognitive science.
>
> Many thanks in advance! :) Cheers,
> Andrew
>
> [1] Cioffi-Revilla, C. (2017) /Introduction to Computational Social
> Science. Principles and Applications. Second Edition./ Cham,
> Switzerland: Springer.
>
> [2] Melnik, R. (ed.) (2015)/Mathematical and Computational Modeling.
> With Applications in Natural and Social Sciences, Engineering, and the
> Arts/. Hoboken, U.S.A.: Wiley.
>
> --
> Andrew Green (he/him)
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to wiki-research-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to wiki-research-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wiki-research-l] German book on "understanding wikis and Wikipedia"

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello,
Recently, I published my new book on wikis and Wikipedia, at Transcript Verlag.
It is an introduction for wiki researchers, founders and supporters,
and offers a systematic approach to wikis with a wiki model and first
steps to a general theory of wikis.
For your information, I have below a link to my YouTube channel with a
short presentation in English, and the link to the publisher.
On the way to the book, which took seven years, I have learned from
many researchers and from people in the Wikimedia movement, and I am
grateful to all of them.
Kind regards
Ziko

https://youtu.be/LvaJfkUUWuw

https://www.transcript-verlag.de/978-3-8376-5645-9/wikis-und-die-wikipedia-verstehen/?number=978-3-8376-5645-9

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Interesting Wikipedia studies

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello,
I love the study about Wikipedia articles in different language
versions, and the consequences for tourism in Spain accordlingly. The
researchers improved articles about Spanish locations, and then the
tourism there went up.
Kind regards
Ziko

Hinnosaar, Marit/Toomas Hinnosaar/Michael Kummer/Olga Slivko (2017): Does
Wikipedia Matter? The effect of Wikipedia on Tourist Choices, Discussion Paper
No. 15-089, Zentrum für Wirtschaftsforschung, http://ftp.zew.de.

Am Fr., 18. Dez. 2020 um 18:33 Uhr schrieb :
>
> In Wikidata we have annotated 1873 items (articles, books, etc.) as
> about Wikipedia. Some of them are listed in Scholia:
> https://scholia.toolforge.org/topic/Q52
>
> Halfaker et al's "2013" paper, as mentioned, I would also mention.
>
> Apart from that there is the famous Nature editorial article "Internet
> encyclopaedias go head to head" from 2005 which may have contributed to
> Wikipedia rise. I think it is the most cited Wikipedia study. It has
> 3182 Google Scholar citations. And it is the most cited study among the
> Wikipedia works in Wikidata.
>
>
> best regards
> Finn
>
>
>
> On 18/12/2020 18.23, Jeremy Foote wrote:
> > When it comes to understanding relationships between multiple language
> > editions, I think that Bao et al.'s work on Omnipedia has a bunch of great
> > insights for how to think about and measure relationships between content
> > in different editions.
> >
> > Bao, P., Hecht, B., Carton, S., Quaderi, M., Horn, M., & Gergle, D. (2012).
> > Omnipedia: Bridging the wikipedia language gap. *Proceedings of the 2012
> > ACM Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems*, 1075–1084.
> > https://doi.org/10.1145/2208516.2208553
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 11:00 AM Johan Jönsson  wrote:
> >
> >> Den fre 18 dec. 2020 kl 16:23 skrev Morten Wang :
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Halfaker et al's 2013 paper digs deeply into answering why the Wikipedia
> >>> community started declining in 2007. They find that the quality assurance
> >>> processes that were created to deal with the firehose of content coming
> >> in
> >>> with the exponential growth around 2004–2005 also end up discarding
> >>> good-faith contributions. This highlights the problem of how to do
> >> quality
> >>> assurance while also being a welcoming community to newcomers who are
> >>> struggling to learn all of Wikipedia's various rules and conventions (see
> >>> also the Teahouse paper).
> >>>
> >>
> >> I think we need to start recommending it with a short explanation on
> >> current trends and mention that it describes a piece of Wikipedia history
> >> (where the mechanics behind the trend could still be relevant). You see the
> >> same curve in a number of other languages (especially languages mainly
> >> spoken in northern Europe), and like English they've typically flattened
> >> out, English already around 2014, other number of languages with a similar
> >> trend around 2018, yet we can still read that the Wikipedia editorship is
> >> in decline in the present tense in papers and articles on English Wikipedia
> >> published in 2020, referencing The Rise and Decline.
> >>
> >> //Johan Jönsson
> >> --
> >> ___
> >> 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] How to quantifying "effort" or "time spent" put into articles?

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello Nate,

Thank you for your interesting question, and thank you for your paper
with Shaw and Mako Hill 2018 on the rise and decline of populations.

Your endeavour seems to be most difficult and hardly possible. My
thinking would be the following: there are certain patterns behind an
edit, or: editing activity. For example, imagine someone who reads an
article and corrects some minor typos and linguistic issues on the
going. How long is the article, how long may it take to read it? How
long may it take to make those edits (or, one big edit)?

On the one hand, you may ask editors or observe them to find out how
much time they need for this kind of activity. On the other hand, you
may try to find this pattern back in certain characteristics of the
edit (edit of the whole page; small changes of letters at several
locations of the text).

It would be a philosophical question what is exactly part of the
editing activity. If I read a whole article for my own purposes, as a
reader, without intention to edit, and then I find a small error and
quickly correct it - does that make my whole reading of the article a
part of my editing activity? I would have read the article anyway.

There would be many other patterns. E.g., someone adds a picture. How
much time this takes, that depends on whether the editor has searched
for it on Commons, or took the same one he found in a different
language version. So, if the picture appears in other language
versions, you assume that the editor needed 10 minutes to find it, and
otherwise, that he needed only two minutes to find the picture on a
different language version?

A last example: On a meeting of administrators I remember an admin
explaining that dealing with one vandalism report on the list of
incidents costs him for about half an hour. Maybe a useful starting
point for further considerations?

Good luck, and kind regards
Ziko










Am Di., 20. Okt. 2020 um 23:18 Uhr schrieb Su-Laine Brodsky
:
>
> Further to Joan’s comment, there are some other ways to stratify edits:
>
> - Whether an edit is vandalism, a vandalism revert, an “actual" change. 
> Vandal edits and reverts are both quick compared to good-faith additions and 
> changes. Heavily vandalized articles will have long edit histories, even 
> though sometimes not much effort was put into them.
>
> - Whether the edit was made by a human or bot.
>
> - Whether a human edit was made with a tool such as AWB or HotCat. AWB in 
> particular can be used to make very fast edits.
>
> Another thought is that if you’re trying to measure contributor effort, why 
> not look at article Talk pages as well? For controversial articles, a large 
> proportion of editor time is spent on discussion.
>
> Cheers,
> Su-Laine (longtime Wikipedia contributor)
>
>
> > On Oct 20, 2020, at 12:37 PM, Johan Jönsson  wrote:
> >
> > A few comments from an editing perspective, in case anything here is useful:
> >
> > I think Levenshtein distance might be a useful concept here, given the
> > indication that I've read through and made some sort of decision around a
> > whole article or a significant part of an article – both for additions and
> > subtractions.
> >
> > When it comes to article content, the most important signifier of effort
> > spent on an edit beyond text length that comes to mind is whether a new ref
> > tag is added. If I'm referencing something, there's a fair chance that I've
> > not only identified a shortage or deficiency, but potentially spent time
> > both finding a source and reading through it to be able to reference it,
> > even if it results in a short sentence.
> >
> > In some languages, translations of other Wikipedia articles are common;
> > there might be a big difference between adding the same type of content
> > translated from another language version and writing it from scratch.
> >
> > //Johan Jönsson
> > --
> >
> > Den tis 20 okt. 2020 kl 20:32 skrev Nate E TeBlunthuis :
> >
> >> Greetings!
> >>
> >> Quantifying effort is obviously a fraught prospect, but Geiger and
> >> Halfaker [1] used edit sessions defined as consecutive edits by an editor
> >> without a gap longer than an hour to quantify the total number of labor
> >> hours spent on Wikipedia.  I'm familiar with other papers that use this
> >> approach to measure things like editor experience.
> >>
> >> I'm curious about the amount of effort put into each particular article.
> >> Edit sessions seem like a good approach, but there are some problems:
> >>
> >>  *   How much time does an edit session of length 1 take?
> >>  *   Should article edit sessions be consecutive in the same article?
> >>  *   What if someone makes an edit to related article in the middle of
> >> their session?
> >>
> >> I wonder what folks here think about alternatives for quantifying effort
> >> to an article like
> >>
> >>  1.  Number of wikitext characters added/removed
> >>  2.  Levenshtein (edit) distance (of characters or tokens)
> >>  3.  Simply the number of edits
> >>
>

[Wiki-research-l] Bibliography of wiki related works

[Ziko van Dijk]

Dear colleagues,

Here a remark/question(s) about the way how we keep record in the
Wikimedia movement with regard to research papers and books about wiki
related topics.

It seems to me that we have several pages for collaborative collecting
the titles. For example, my first look would lead me to a bibliography
page on Meta-Wiki [1]. But we have also such a page on Englisch WP [2]
and on German WP, even two [3] etc.

Sometimes the pages have different goals: do they collect "all"
literature" or only "relevant" titles or titles in a specific
language; or are they rather a list of "recommended" works etc.
Often, the pages are obviously incomplete and not up to date. Some end
with the year 2019 (or actually, were not continued in the Corona
times?).

What do you think? Did I simply not find the "right" page? Or what
would be the best solution for creating one single page or database of
wiki related works? Including machine readable information about
language, specific sub topic, links to reviews etc.?

And, of course, there remains the question what is actually a wiki
related work. Often a book does not have "wiki" in its title but deals
with "online creation communities" or "peer production" or "social
media" and has a large chapter on wikis.

Kind regards
Ziko



[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Research_Bibliography
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_studies_of_Wikipedia
[3] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedistik/Bibliographie
and https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedistik/Arbeiten

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Editor surveys on race/ethnicity/religion

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello Su-Laine,

Interesting question!
One reason might be: researchers don't think that these questions are
important for their particular interest.
Or: if your sample is small then these items could help to identify the person.

Also, it depends on the general culture or demographics of your
country. In some countries it is normal that e.g. the government in a
census asks you these questions. In Germany, it would become a public
outcry if the government asked people about their "race". By the way,
there is now a discussion ongoing that Germany should erase the word
"race" from its constitution ("no discrimination because of race
[...]") as race does not exist.
I now had a problem writing about the anti harassment policies of the
WMF, because the word "race" appears there. I solved the problem by
putting "race" in quotation marks.

In Germany, pollsters stopped a long time ago asking voters for their
denomination. It turned out that the difference (protestant vs.
catholic) was no longer relevant. It seems to be relevant, though,
"how often do you attend church". Other denominations in Germany are
traditionally small, although islam is in the rise (ca. 4% if I
remember correctly).

It would be interesting to have research about what Wikipedia related
surveys actually ask about the participants. If I remember correctly,
in German speaking countries researchers ask about gender but hardly
ethnicity, religion or "race".

I would like to read what others think about, or whether there are
specific issues with Wikipedia related research. E.g., one might think
that race is more relevant for face-to-face-communication than in
online communication, although that would be a reduced view on the
issue.

Kind regards
Ziko























Am Mo., 21. Sept. 2020 um 07:19 Uhr schrieb Su-Laine Brodsky
:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I’m wondering if any large-scale surveys have been done that ask Wikipedia 
> editors about their race, ethnicity, or religion?
> Also, have any researchers considered asking these questions in editor 
> surveys, but chosen not to ask them for particular reasons?
>
> Best wishes,
> Su-Laine
>
> Su-Laine Brodsky
> Vancouver, BC
> ___
> 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] Statistics on reverted edits

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello Sue-Laine,

Interesting, I am very much looking forward to your results/paper.

Allow me a note on „reverts“. I am not sure which is the exact metholody
you want to use, and what is your approach / field in general. It comes to
my mind that a good definition of revert is needed. Technically, a revert
means that you re-install a previous page version (I guess). But sometimes,
also in the technical dimension, this is done by the „revert“ function (or
the revert function that enables a comment), and sometimes „manually“ by
creating a new version with old content.

Sometimes, the revert is a full revert, sometimes a partial revert.
Sometimes, the old version is text A, the new version is text B, and then
the „revert“ actually is a version with text A‘ or B‘ or C (the apostroph
in my writing means: similar to).

Also, what about reverting yourself? With what motive exactly?

If I am correct you have mentioned some examples dealing with the reason
for deletion. That is an important approach too, of course. It would be
another step to consider the consequences of a revert in the social
dimension. So how does a revert afflict the social relationship between the
editors involved. And how is the general atmosphere on the wiki afflicted.

Here some thought, maybe useful or not. :-)

Kind regards
Ziko




Tilman Bayer  schrieb am Sa. 1. Feb. 2020 um 03:25:

> Concerning 1) and about analyzing reverts in general, see
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Revert .
>
> To explore 5), https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/AbuseFilter and
> https://tools.wmflabs.org/ptwikis/Filters:enwiki may be of interest.
>
> Regards, HaeB
>
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 12:01 PM Su-Laine Brodsky 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I’m looking for statistics about the edits that are reverted on the
> > English Wikipedia. This is for purposes of explaining to the public what
> > Wikipedia’s quality control processes are like. If hard numbers aren’t
> > available, I’m also interested in educated guesstimates.
> >
> > 1) An often-quoted statistic is that 7% of edits are reverted. Is this
> > still believed to be true?
> >
> > 2) According to
> > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/07/19/scoring-platform-team/, 2.5% of
> > edits are vandalism. There are other common reasons for reverting, and
> I’m
> > wondering if anyone has studied their frequency. Does anyone know what
> > percentage of all edits are reverted for being:
> > a) Spam (as perceived by the reverter)
> > b) Copyright violation
> > c) Violations of the Biographies of Living Persons policy
> >
> > 3) Do statistics on the number of edits per day on the English Wikipedia
> > (i.e. 164,000 edits per day) include edits that are blocked by the spam
> > blacklists or by edit filters?
> >
> > 4) How many edits per day on the English Wikiepdia are prevented
> (blocked)
> > by the spam blacklists?
> >
> > 5) How many edits per day on the English Wikiepdia are prevented by the
> > edit filters?
> >
> > 6) What percentage of all reverts are made by users of Huggle and Stiki?
> >
> > 7) What proportion of vandalism is quickly reverted? A 2007 study
> > (Priedhorsky et al) found that 42% of vandalistic contributions are
> > repaired within one view and 70% within ten views - have any newer
> studies
> > been done on this?
> >
> > Thanks in advance!
> >
> > Su-Laine
> > Vancouver, BC
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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] Research and Wikipedia/Wikimedia event in London, 08. February

[Ziko van Dijk]

Dear fellows,

Thanks for the invitation, its sounds really great. I am busy now with an
overview how different disciplines approach wikis. An interchange about
transdisciplinary wiki research would be wonderful. Alas, I cannot come to
London that day. I hope you all will have a productive and inspiring day.
Kind regards,
Ziko

Am Mo., 27. Jan. 2020 um 20:07 Uhr schrieb Travis Smith :

> Is there a way to attend remotely?
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 8:46 AM Lucie Kaffee 
> wrote:
>
> > Hello everyone!
> >
> > We are organizing an event for Research and Wikimedia to exchange about
> > research done in the field and for researchers and Wikimedia community
> > members to work together on new ideas. The idea derived from the fact
> that
> > many researchers reusing Wikipedia, Wikidata and their sister projects
> > often are not yet integrated with the community. This makes their work a
> > lot more difficult than necessary. At the same time, many research
> projects
> > are useful for the community, but not yet integrated into Wikipedia and
> co.
> > We want to change this and facilitate the exchange between researchers
> and
> > Wikimedia community members in an event, where we bring people interested
> > in similar topics together. If you are either doing research in the
> > Wikipedia space or are a community member of one of the Wikimedia
> projects,
> > please come by on the 8th of February. More details below.
> > Please spread the event invitation in your communities!
> >
> > Best,
> > Lucie
> >
> > https://www.eventbrite.com/e/research-and-wikimedia-tickets-90824421289
> >
> > *Description*
> > We are organizing an event for Wikimedians and researchers to exchange!
> > Come along and learn more about research happening around Wikimedia and
> > what Wikimedians can teach you about the different Wikimedia projects!
> > A large part of the computer science research community is exploring
> > Wikipedia, Wikidata and their sister projects. In the fields of natural
> > language processing (NLP) as well as semantic web, Wikipedia and Wikidata
> > are often used as a fundamental part of the research world. At the same
> > time, the community of Wikidata and Wikipedia could make use of a variety
> > of tools developed by researchers. However, currently, the gap between
> > things explored in research and actual applications in Wikidata and
> > Wikipedia needs bridging. Therefore, we want to build a community of
> > Wikidata community members and research to exchange needs, existing
> tools,
> > open challenges and research question to foster an environment, where
> both
> > communities can benefit from the exchange.
> > The ideal is to have all the different approaches and commonalities under
> > one umbrella to foster exchange and support of different research
> > communities and their approaches.
> > OpenSym and the WikiWorkshop are already doing that for the people
> > submitting to and attending computer science research conferences. But
> > without the exchange with the community, there is a lack of
> communication,
> > creating silos of missing exchange.
> >
> > *The Goal is*
> > to connect the researcher and the Wikimedia community to enable an
> exchange
> > that could ultimately lead to the research projects being implemented as
> > tools for Wikipedia. And vice-versa: More research projects build on
> > community needs.
> >
> > *We invite*
> > *Researchers*
> > Anyone who does or is planning to do research on or around Wikimedia
> > projects, such as Wikipedia, Wikidata and others.
> > *Wikimedians*
> > Anyone in the community, who is interested in improving the research
> > happening around Wikimedia - you don’t need any experience in research.
> > Wikipedia editor, Wikidata data magician, whatever you do in Wikimedia
> > projects, your feedback will be highly valuable.
> >
> > *What we need from you*
> > We would ask all researchers to bring an A2/A3 poster about what they are
> > doing in Wikimedia that we can put up so that we can create an easy way
> to
> > exchange on different projects. If you don’t have a project yet, don’t
> > worry- just bring a poster with topics you find interesting, and you
> might
> > be able to meet other researchers already working in your field of
> > interest. (If you struggle with printing the poster beforehand, please
> > reach out to us a few days in advance.)
> >
> > *Event*
> > We will spend a day exchanging on recent challenges around Wikimedia.
> > Besides the posters, we aim to form working groups for the afternoon to
> > work on topics of shared interest and possibly propose a project of
> common
> > interest.
> >
> > --
> > Lucie-Aimée Kaffee
> > ___
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >
> Travis
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.o

Re: [Wiki-research-l] How many papers / books about wikis?

[Ziko van Dijk]

Thanks, guys. Allow me to explain my motivation: I try to find out how
"big" is research into wikis and Wikipedia at the moment. How much
attention is given to it. And what would the basis look like if you'd try
to establish a proper academic discipline about wikis.
Kind regards
Ziko

Am So., 5. Jan. 2020 um 21:21 Uhr schrieb Stuart A. Yeates <
syea...@gmail.com>:

> This largely depends on what you mean by "about"
>
> Many tens of thousands of articles use a wikipedia or other WMF
> service as a source in some way (either a source for a definition, a
> selection or as a traditional datasource in some way) or speculate
> about the future of wikis.
>
> At the other end of the spectrum, a vanishing small number tell
> experienced wikipedia editors anything they didn't already know about
> their wikipedia or other WMF service or quantify things we know in
> ways we don't see as deeply flawed.
>
> cheers
> stuart
> --
> ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
>
>
> On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 at 02:36, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> > to everyone to whom it concerns, my best wishes for the year 2020!
> > I am interested in the number of scientific papers or monographies,
> > articles etc. about wikis. Do you know about a paper that has come up
> with
> > a relatively recent number?
> > In my understanding, there are several problems that make it unwise to
> > simply search for "wiki" in a general catalogue:
> > * the word wiki can appear in words such as "Wikinger" (German for:
> > viking), or it is used as a metaphor (e.g., for a reform of democracy)
> > * some entities such as Wikileaks have "wiki" in their name, but are no
> > wikis, and some entities such as Open Street Map are wikis, but don't
> have
> > the word in their name
> > * wiki relevant topics may appear under terms such as "collaborative
> > writing" or "open content creation".
> >
> > Kind regards
> > Ziko
> > ___
> > 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] How many papers / books about wikis?

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello,
to everyone to whom it concerns, my best wishes for the year 2020!
I am interested in the number of scientific papers or monographies,
articles etc. about wikis. Do you know about a paper that has come up with
a relatively recent number?
In my understanding, there are several problems that make it unwise to
simply search for "wiki" in a general catalogue:
* the word wiki can appear in words such as "Wikinger" (German for:
viking), or it is used as a metaphor (e.g., for a reform of democracy)
* some entities such as Wikileaks have "wiki" in their name, but are no
wikis, and some entities such as Open Street Map are wikis, but don't have
the word in their name
* wiki relevant topics may appear under terms such as "collaborative
writing" or "open content creation".

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Generalizability of research across different language versions

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello, indeed a very interesting topic, and one should really treat small
and big Wikipedias as very different kinds of websites. Just alone that on
big Wikipedias, you have and use a watchlist, while on a small Wikipedia,
you basically use the Recent changes.
A systematic comparison would be great. My paper ten years ago was more a
survey on the topic by itself: Ziko van Dijk: Wikipedia and
lesser-resourced languages. In: *Language Problems and Language Planning*
33 (2009, Nr. 3, Herbst), S. 234-255.
Actually in the book I am working on right now, such a systematic
comparison would be a very useful example for how to apply my wiki model...
:-)
Kind regards
Ziko



Am Do., 3. Okt. 2019 um 21:13 Uhr schrieb Lucie Kaffee <
lucie.kaf...@gmail.com>:

> Just adding a small point I saw while interviewing editors of different
> language Wikipedias: I believe (and haven't further investigated, so take
> this with a grain of salt) that there is also a general difference in the
> behavior of "small" and "large" communities, e.g., in trust between the
> editors and how they work together. This seemed to be independent of other
> cultural context, but this is rather anecdotal and would be interesting to
> see further investigated.
> I find it generally a very interesting topic and look forward to what
> results from the discussion here, so far I see research only applying their
> methods across Wikipedias rather than drawing conclusion from one language
> version to another.
> Thanks Isaac also for the collection of reading material :)
>
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2019, 16:23 Amir E. Aharoni 
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks a lot for bringing this up.
> >
> > Sorry for not offering a solution, but I do want to mention a
> > frequently-missed aspect of the problem: Wikis in different languages
> have
> > some differences that are understandable because they reflect some
> > objective cultural characteristics of the people who speak it. But some
> > differences are artificial and exit because in the early days of
> Wikimedia
> > (mid-2000s) there were no convenient ways for wikis to communicate and
> > share info. There were no global accounts and no convenient translation
> > tools.
> >
> > Templates are still not global, even though there is huge demand for
> it,[1]
> > and a lot of community process are implemented using templates: requests
> > for deletion, requests for unblocking, article sorting for WikiProjects,
> > stub sorting. Many of these things could be unified, at least partially,
> by
> > making templates global, and among many benefits, it would make research
> > easier, too.
> >
> > [1] It came at #3 in the Community Wishlist vote in 2015, and at #1 in
> > 2016. Despite this demand, it was not implemented :(
> >
> > --
> > Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
> > http://aharoni.wordpress.com
> > ‪“We're living in pieces,
> > I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
> >
> >
> > ‫בתאריך יום ד׳, 2 באוק׳ 2019 ב-14:37 מאת ‪Jan Dittrich‬‏ <‪
> > jan.dittr...@wikimedia.de‬‏>:‬
> >
> > > Hello  researchers,
> > >
> > >  A lot of research on Wikipedia is published in English and also uses
> the
> > > English Wikipedia as source of data or researchers get their
> participants
> > > via English Wikipedia [0].
> > >
> > > A frequent criticism I meet when discussing such research with
> non-en.wp
> > > community members is that their Wikipedia is different and the results
> of
> > > en.wp base research are problematic/incomparable/totally useless.
> > >
> > > So I want to ask:
> > > - Do you know of research comparing different Wikis, preferably across
> > > language versions? [1]
> > > - How would you deal with such criticism, particularly of the "if it is
> > not
> > > about 'my' wp it is useless"-kind [2]?
> > >
> > > Kind Regards,
> > >  Jan
> > >
> > > 
> > > [0] Plausible due to academi fields, particularly Computer Science,
> > > publishing mainly in english, size and WMF as actor being US-based.
> > > [1] I know of »revisiting "The Rise and Decline" in a Population of
> Peer
> > > Production Projects« (https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3173929),
> > > comparing different Wikia-Wikis; Research like "limits of
> > > self-organization" (https://firstmonday.org/article/view/1405/1323)
> that
> > > refer to general principles of peer production. Comparisons of
> Wikipedias
> > > across languages and the imp

Re: [Wiki-research-l] distinguishing native contributors from helpful strangers

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello Amir,

Interesting, I called this phenomenon "foreigh helpers" nearly 10 years ago:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Ziko/Handbuch-Allgemeines
These people do not speak the language of the language version -
otherwise they would be simply a 'normal' part of the community. But
they help out with skills, maybe especially those that are not
existing in the small community.
I have considered also a foreign helper who is supporting translation
tools or platforms, like GerardM with providing scripts or people who
support translatewiki. But that is usually an activity outside the
wiki.

Kind regards.
Ziko




Am Mi., 5. Juni 2019 um 16:04 Uhr schrieb Kiril Simeonovski
:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I think this is an excellent research topic that might give us helpful
> insights on how Wikipedias can benefit from the support provided by
> non-speakers. Discerning the namespaces where this support ends and whether
> it was made by humans or bots may also give highly useful information. My
> observations so far regarding any support by the so-called "helpful
> strangers" can be summarised in the following conclusions:
>
> * The larger the community size of a Wikipedia, the higher rules-lawyering
> applied to the "helpful strangers". This means that:
> ** Very small Wikipedias (less than 25 active contributors) do not have a
> strict set of rules nor a native-speaking contributors to watch and every
> kind of support is welcome (mostly in the form of bot-generated articles
> and automatic translation of templates).
> ** Small Wikipedias (from 25-100 active contributors) do have some set of
> rules and some native-speaking contributors but most kinds of support are
> still welcome.
> ** Medium-sized Wikipedias (from 100-1,000 active contributors) do have a
> clear set of rules and a native-speaking community to take care of
> everything; the room for support is limited to human editing that abides
> some rules and sometimes community permission is required (mostly comes in
> the form of categorisation an correction of templates, while bot-generated
> stuff is mostly done by native speakers with a bot flag required for
> strangers).
> ** Large Wikipedias (over 1,000 active contributors) do have rules about
> things that could have not been imagined and native-speaking community that
> easily manages the fields where the strangers could help in, making them
> not attractive for non-native speakers to come in and help.
>
> Another dimension could be a research on the block log of the "helpful
> strangers" that might explain how these contributors are accepted by the
> communities they are helping to.
>
> Best regards,
> Kiril
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 13:24 Andy Mabbett  wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 at 09:42, Amir E. Aharoni
> >  wrote:
> >
> > > There is a phenomenon in Wikipedias in smaller languages: There activity
> > > level of people who actually know the language of the wiki and make
> > > meaningful text contributions is relatively low, and the activity of
> > people
> > > from other wikis who make various technical edits that don't require the
> > > knowledge of the language is relatively high.
> >
> > > Now, I've written "relatively low" and "relatively high", but these are
> > > just my anecdotal impressions. Has anyone thought of a way to quantify
> > this
> > > more precisely?
> >
> > It won't answer the question fully, but you can narrow down the
> > results by looking at babel templates to see which languages they
> > self-rate as being proficient in, or otherwise, on their home
> > project(s).
> >
> > I try to act as a "helpful stranger" on non-English projects, for
> > instance by adding images and {{Authority control}} templates. This is
> > usually well received, but there are a couple of projects where the
> > former at least is apparently not welcome, and I've recently been
> > blocked (with no warning; my talk page ink is still red), with no talk
> > page or email access, on Lithuanian Wikipedia. In 2015 I was accused
> > of "vandalism" and "trolling" there.
> >
> > Happy to discuss my experiences - good and bad - off-list, if that
> > will help your research.
> >
> > --
> > Andy Mabbett
> > @pigsonthewing
> > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
> >
> > ___
> > 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] Wikipedia digital common and states

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello,
most interesting, so you have in mind contacts with the national state
itself in the form of the government? Otherwise, there are a lot of
contacts with government based institutions, such as national archives.
Most of these contacts, I guess, relate to the national chapters and not to
the WMF.
Kind regards
Ziko



Am Mi., 27. Feb. 2019 um 17:20 Uhr schrieb Sebastien Shulz <
sebastien.sh...@gmail.com>:

> 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

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

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello Dario,

The very best for the future, I am going to miss your voice at the research
meetings. Great news that Leila takes over.

Kind regards
Ziko

Am Mi., 13. Feb. 2019 um 22:56 Uhr schrieb Dario Taraborelli <
dtarabore...@wikimedia.org>:

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

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello Stuart,
No, I totally disagree. :-) I absolutely don't mean "plain English" but the
special concept as described in the article linked.
And I do not think that we need a software solution. We need good writing
skills.
Kind regards
Ziko



Am So., 10. Feb. 2019 um 03:02 Uhr schrieb Stuart A. Yeates <
syea...@gmail.com>:

> I believe that the English language term you are looking for is
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_English and the problem is that
> en.wiki policies already require plain english. The core of the issue
> is that writing in plain english is hard and currently there are few
> tools to support editors produce it.
>
> A decent reading level test applied by section and calculated using a
> javascript tool that fitted into the standard wiki framework for tools
> would be a very useful addition. The tool could annotate the article
> and for new articles notify the article creator.  Of course, we'd need
> supporting materials to aid editors learn plain english and so forth,
> but we have to start somewhere.
>
> cheers
> stuart
>
> --
> ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
>
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 at 11:22, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:
> >
> > Allow me to propose something different: Wikipedia needs better writing,
> > not technical solutions. And for different target groups, we need
> different
> > encyclopedias:
> > * for children
> > * for people with disabilities, such as
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leichte_Sprache
> > * for scholars, e.g. "Wikipedia scholar".
> > A different wiki for every target group can be arranged in the best
> > possible way for the target group.
> >
> > Kind regards
> > Ziko
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Am Sa., 9. Feb. 2019 um 21:55 Uhr schrieb Aaron Gray <
> > aaronngray.li...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > I am thinking maybe we could use subdomains for layperson, and for
> schools,
> > > and maybe universities to have specialized [approved] content also ?
> Just
> > > an idea given this possible mechanism.
> > >
> > > On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 at 20:15, Aaron Gray 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thank you please keep suggestions and pragmatics coming in !
> > > >
> > > > I looked at this problem some time ago and the extra programming for
> what
> > > > I am proposing is quite minimal utilizing existing MediaWiki
> libraries
> > > and
> > > > adding extra code to support the tag structure with defaulting to
> make it
> > > > seamless to existing articles.
> > > >
> > > > I really think this would increase the usability and audience of
> > > > Wikipedia and also might possibly allow us to integrate content from
> > > other
> > > > Wikipedia projects.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Aaron
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 at 07:57, Amir E. Aharoni <
> > > amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> The suggestions that bring up the Simple English Wikipedia miss the
> fact
> > > >> that it only covers the English language, which most people don't
> know,
> > > >> and
> > > >> doesn't do almost anything for the many other languages of the
> world.
> > > (I'm
> > > >> saying "almost anything" because I know that there are people who
> prefer
> > > >> to
> > > >> translate articles from the Simple English Wikipedia, and this
> > > indirectly
> > > >> benefits other languages.)
> > > >>
> > > >> One thing about how Wikipedia works that practically no-one ever
> > > >> challenges
> > > >> is that every page title is associated with a page, and the page is
> > > always
> > > >> a single big blob of sections, section headings, templates and magic
> > > >> words.
> > > >>
> > > >> What if it was not a single blob?
> > > >>
> > > >> What if all the magic words, such as NOTOC, DISPLAYTITLE, and
> > > DEFAULTSORT
> > > >> moved to a separate metadata storage?
> > > >>
> > > >> More closely to this thread's topic, what if at least some sections
> that
> > > >> all or most pages have were stored separately, so that it would be
> > > >> possible
> > > >> to parse

Re: [Wiki-research-l] User type context sensitivity to introduction sections.

[Ziko van Dijk]

Allow me to propose something different: Wikipedia needs better writing,
not technical solutions. And for different target groups, we need different
encyclopedias:
* for children
* for people with disabilities, such as
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leichte_Sprache
* for scholars, e.g. "Wikipedia scholar".
A different wiki for every target group can be arranged in the best
possible way for the target group.

Kind regards
Ziko




Am Sa., 9. Feb. 2019 um 21:55 Uhr schrieb Aaron Gray <
aaronngray.li...@gmail.com>:

> I am thinking maybe we could use subdomains for layperson, and for schools,
> and maybe universities to have specialized [approved] content also ? Just
> an idea given this possible mechanism.
>
> On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 at 20:15, Aaron Gray 
> wrote:
>
> > Thank you please keep suggestions and pragmatics coming in !
> >
> > I looked at this problem some time ago and the extra programming for what
> > I am proposing is quite minimal utilizing existing MediaWiki libraries
> and
> > adding extra code to support the tag structure with defaulting to make it
> > seamless to existing articles.
> >
> > I really think this would increase the usability and audience of
> > Wikipedia and also might possibly allow us to integrate content from
> other
> > Wikipedia projects.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Aaron
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 at 07:57, Amir E. Aharoni <
> amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> The suggestions that bring up the Simple English Wikipedia miss the fact
> >> that it only covers the English language, which most people don't know,
> >> and
> >> doesn't do almost anything for the many other languages of the world.
> (I'm
> >> saying "almost anything" because I know that there are people who prefer
> >> to
> >> translate articles from the Simple English Wikipedia, and this
> indirectly
> >> benefits other languages.)
> >>
> >> One thing about how Wikipedia works that practically no-one ever
> >> challenges
> >> is that every page title is associated with a page, and the page is
> always
> >> a single big blob of sections, section headings, templates and magic
> >> words.
> >>
> >> What if it was not a single blob?
> >>
> >> What if all the magic words, such as NOTOC, DISPLAYTITLE, and
> DEFAULTSORT
> >> moved to a separate metadata storage?
> >>
> >> More closely to this thread's topic, what if at least some sections that
> >> all or most pages have were stored separately, so that it would be
> >> possible
> >> to parse and render them semantically? The References section, for
> >> example,
> >> is something that many pages have. What if it could be separated from
> the
> >> prose blob and stored separately, so that it would be parsed
> semantically
> >> for different screens and contexts, such as Wikicite? Currently its
> >> rendering and storage is heavily biased for desktop and wiki syntax
> >> editing, and suboptimal for mobile display and editing, as well as for
> >> translation.
> >>
> >> And most closely to the thread's original topic, what if one page could
> >> have several lead sections? Sure, this can be done now with hacks such
> as
> >> templates and namespaces, but these are still hacks: they are not
> >> semantic,
> >> not portable across languages, and not easily machine-readable.
> >>
> >> Of course, doing all these things would require major, major changes in
> >> how
> >> Wikipedia's software works. Developers would have to write a lot of code
> >> and editors would have to get used to new things. But sometimes it's
> worth
> >> thinking our of the box instead of saying "that's not how Wikipedia
> >> works".
> >>
> >> בתאריך שבת, 9 בפבר׳ 2019, 02:16, מאת Aaron Gray <
> >> aaronngray.li...@gmail.com
> >> >:
> >>
> >> > I am suggesting WikiPedia has context-sensitive articles so if you
> are a
> >> > kid or a layperson or an expert in a field you get a different
> >> > introduction.
> >> >
> >> > Often the reason people don't read or use WikiPedia is articles are
> too
> >> > complex at the start.
> >> >
> >> > Having an adaptive setting that can be chosen but users as default
> needs
> >> > facilitating by WikiMedia technology.
> >> >
> >> > Thoughts and ideas and possible implementation ideas on this idea are
> >> > welcomed.
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> >
> >> > Aaron
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Aaron Gray
> >> >
> >> > Independent Open Source Software Engineer, Computer Language
> Researcher,
> >> > Information Theorist, and amateur computer scientist.
> >> > ___
> >> > 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
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Aaron Gray
> >
> > Independent Open Source Software Engineer, Computer Language Researcher,
>

Re: [Wiki-research-l] What instructors think about teaching with Wikipedia AFTER having tried it?

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello,

Most interesting. One of the works I came along for my paper "Wikis im
Unterricht reflektieren und bearbeiten" was this:

O’Donnell, Michael, 2014: Science Writing, Wikis, and Collaborative
Learning. In: Dougherty, Jack/O’Donnell, Tennyson (Hrsg.): *Web Writing:
Why and How for Liberal Arts Teaching and Learning*. University of Michigan
Press/Trinity College ePress edition 2014,
http://epress.trincoll.edu/webwriting/chap-ter/odonnell.

My personal opinion: It may be problematic to use Wikipedia (which is a
working and presentation platform) as a teaching platform. If you want to
use it anyway, the students must be extremely well prepared for this kind
of environment.

Kind regards
Ziko



Am Fr., 8. Feb. 2019 um 19:07 Uhr schrieb Jonathan Morgan <
jmor...@wikimedia.org>:

> Piotr,
>
> I think this is an excellent topic, FWIW.
>
> And I bet the Wikipedia Education Program would be interested in the
> outcomes of this research. And they might be willing to point you to
> potential interview candidates (tho, obviously, they have a strong
> US/EnWiki bias, so it wouldn't be the complete picture).
>
> Best,
> J
>
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 8:43 AM Juliana Bastos Marques <
> domusau...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I can add something to this, from my own experiences and from what
> > colleagues have told me. Here are some negative feedbacks to the
> experience
> > of teaching with Wikipedia. Not in any particular order:
> >
> > 1. Lack of support from the Wikipedia community (reversions, scaring
> > newbies - depends on the specifics of each language community)
> > 2. Lack of teacher's experience in editing and dealing with the community
> > (leads to poor management fo issues in 1)
> > 3. Problems with infrastructure in the university
> > 4. Students lacking interest in editing, doing everything in the last
> > minute and not caring about the outcome after the end of classes.
> >
> > Piotr, I'm very interested in following your research. I'd love to hear
> > about studies examining these issues, and how they were/can be overcome.
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Juliana
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 4:04 PM Piotr Konieczny  wrote:
> >
> > > I am mulling over a new research topic: what researchers think about
> > > teaching with Wikipedia type of assignment AFTER having tried it? AFAIK
> > > we have a lot of papers on how to teach with Wikipedia, some on effects
> > > on students and some about what instructors think about Wikipedia in
> > > general, but correct me if I am wrong, nobody has actually asked
> > > instructors about their experience with it? And from my personal
> > > experience with seeing such projects on Wikipedia, I think there's a
> lot
> > > of people who try it once and don't come back and well, do we know why
> > > outside educated guesses?
> > >
> > > Right now I am just brainstorming this idea, so any thoughts, up to and
> > > including suggestions for what questions to ask, etc. are appreciated.
> > >
> > > Also, I am generally conducting solo research, and all my prior papers
> > > on 'teaching with Wikipedia' have been solo authored (and my goal is as
> > > always to turn this research into publishable paper), but if someone
> > > really, really, really would want to join this project because they
> love
> > > the idea, and would want to be a co-author of the future paper, and/or
> > > present the results at a WikiSym or such that I sadly go to every five
> > > years or so, feel free to send me a private message. No promises, but I
> > > don't bite :)
> > >
> > > --
> > > Piotr Konieczny, PhD
> > > http://hanyang.academia.edu/PiotrKonieczny
> > > http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=gdV8_AEJ
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Piotrus
> > >
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > www.domusaurea.org
> > ___
> > 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] Farewell, Erik!

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello,

In the Netherlands we were always proud to have the famous man of the data
among us. We are looking forward to all future miracle work, in whatever
position, Erik!

Kind regards
Ziko

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2008-11-01_wcn_20.JPG

Am Mi., 6. Feb. 2019 um 22:18 Uhr schrieb Dario Taraborelli <
dtarabore...@wikimedia.org>:

> “[R]ecent revisions of an article can be peeled off to reveal older layers,
> which are still meaningful for historians. Even graffiti applied by vandals
> can by its sheer informality convey meaningful information, just like
> historians learned a lot from graffiti on walls of classic Pompei. Likewise
> view patterns can tell future historians a lot about what was hot and what
> wasn’t in our times. Reason why these raw view data are meant to be
> preserved for a long time.”
>
> Erik Zachte wrote these lines in a blog post
> <
> https://web.archive.org/web/20171018194720/http://infodisiac.com/blog/2009/07/michael-jackson/
> >
> almost
> ten years ago, and I cannot find better words to describe the gift he gave
> us. Erik retired  this
> past Friday, leaving behind an immense legacy. I had the honor to work with
> him for several years, and I hosted this morning an intimate, tearful
> celebration of what Erik has represented for the Wikimedia movement.
>
> His Wikistats project —with his signature
> pale yellow background we've known and loved since the mid 2000s
>  >—has
> been much more than an "analytics platform". It's been an individual
> attempt he initiated, and grew over time, to try and comprehend and make
> sense of the largest open collaboration project in human history, driven by
> curiosity and by an insatiable desire to serve data to the communities that
> most needed it.
>
> Through this project, Erik has created a live record of data describing the
> growth and reach of all Wikimedia communities, across languages and
> projects, putting multi-lingualism and smaller communities at the very
> center of his attention. He coined metrics such as "active editors" that
> defined the benchmark for volunteers, the Wikimedia Foundation, and the
> academic community to understand some of the growing pains and editor
> retention issues
> <
> https://web.archive.org/web/20110608214507/http://infodisiac.com/blog/2009/12/new-editors-are-joining-english-wikipedia-in-droves/
> >
> the movement has faced. He created countless reports—that predate by nearly
> a decade modern visualizations of online attention—to understand what
> Wikipedia traffic means in the context of current events like elections
> <
> https://web.archive.org/web/20160405055621/http://infodisiac.com/blog/2008/09/sarah-palin/
> >
> or public health crises
> <
> https://web.archive.org/web/20090708011216/http://infodisiac.com/blog/2009/05/h1n1-flu-or-new-flu-or/
> >.
> He has created countless
>  visualizations
> <
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/10/27/new-interactive-visualization-wikipedia/
> >
> that show the enormous gaps in local language content and representation
> that, as a movement, we face in our efforts to build an encyclopedia for
> and about everyone. He has also made extensive use of pie charts
> <
> https://web.archive.org/web/20141222073751/http://infodisiac.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/piechartscorrected.png
> >,
> which—as friends—we are ready to turn a blind eye towards.
>
> Most importantly, the data Erik has brougth to life has been cited over
> 1,000 times
> <
> https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=stats.wikimedia.org
> >
> in the scholarly literature. If we gave credit to open data creators in the
> same way as we credit authors of scholarly papers, Erik would be one of the
> most influential authors in the field, and I don't think it is much of a
> stretch to say that the massive trove of data and metrics Erik has made
> available had a direct causal role in the birth and growth of the academic
> field of Wikimedia research, and more broadly, scholarship of online
> collaboration.
>
> Like I said this morning, Erik -- you have been not only an invaluable
> colleague and a steward for the movement, but also a very decent human
> being, and I am grateful we shared some of this journey together.
>
> Please join me in celebrating Erik on his well-deserved retirement, read
> his statement  to learn
> what he's planning to do next, or check this lovely portrait
>  Wired published a
> while back about "the Stats Master Making Sense of Wikipedia's Massive Data
> Trove".
>
> Dario
>
>
> --
> *Dario Taraborelli  *Director, Head of Research, Wikimedia Foundation
> research.wikimedia.org • nitens.org • @readermeter
> 

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Readers of Wikipedia

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello,
Thanks for the link and the comments, Leila!

Am Fr., 14. Dez. 2018 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Kerry Raymond <
kerry.raym...@gmail.com>:

> hostage to the interests of their contributors (unless they actively
> remove the material). That is, you get the topics that the contributors are
> willing and able to write, no matter what the intention might be.
>

That's a very pointy expression: "Hostage to the interests of their
contributors"! In fact, WP should serve recipients, but the reality is
often different. We alreday saw that Article Feedback Tool as a means to
find out what recipients think. I would be happy with a new, less ambitious
approach, where we don't expect recipients to contribute to the improvement
of content but just want to know their opinion.

By the way, the distincion of large and short articles I have found in
Collison's "Encyclopedias through the ages" (or similar) from 1966. It is
not very prominent in there, but I have elaborated on the idea in 2015,
with a distinction of definition articles, exposition articles, longer
articles and dissertations.

An encyclopedia with "short" articles - or a meaningful combination of the
four types above - would fit well to the original concept of hypertext not
being an actual set of texts (or nodes), but being an individual's specific
learning strategy or reading path.

Federico: remember, most of the oldest German texts (Old High German) deal
with Biblical topics... :-)

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

[Wiki-research-l] Readers of Wikipedia

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello,

I just watched the showcase of December 2018, thank you for the interesting
contribution! It would be great it further research could have a look at
questions such as language choice.
With regard to have more insight in what readers want, I struggled in the
past with two questions:

Regionally important content: Should a Wikipedia language version
concentrate on regional topics, or try to cover a large variety of topics?
Heinz Kloss in the 1970s introduced the idea of "eigenbezogene Inhalte",
content, that is closely related to a language and its region, like local
history, culture and typical crafts such as fishing on the Faroe islands or
farming in the Alps. What do the readers in Hungary want? That hu.WP
concentrates on Hungarian topics, while they consult English wikipedia for
specialized technical topics or other countries?

Large or small articles: Some printed encyclopedias had relatively few, but
large articles. Others segmented the content into many small articles.
(Think of Encyclopedia Britannica: Macropedia and Micropedia.) What do
Wikipedia readers want? Do they prefer to read about a larger topic in one
long, well structured article? Or several short ones, linking to each other?

I could imagine that a reader who is interested in information for work or
school prefers long articles that provide an in-depth approach in order to
became familiar with the overall topic (that is, what one would expect
traditionally). And that "news" readers want to look up something quickly,
in a short, simplyfing article.

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Data on arbitration, mediation, voting

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello Ofer Arazy,

I remember your paper with M. Lisa Yeo which gave me important insight
about wikis in corporations.

If I understand you well, you are like a historian looking for primary
sources of institutions that deal with certain events, and the problem is
that some of those sources are not public?

With regard to my experience in the arbitration committee of German
Wikipedia: that committee has an external, non public wiki for discussing
cases in private. I don't know about any rules concerning a later
publication, comparable to the 30 years limit of restricted government
papers. It might be possible to find out who was on the arbitration
committee of English Wikipedia at that time, contact them and ask them to
publish what can be published, or at least give you access under certain
conditions.

In general, I am now busy e.g. with collaboration mechanisms in wikis and
with wikis in general. If you are interested in an exchange about these
topics, you may contact me for talking about.

Kind regards
Ziko van Dijk
user: Ziko








Am Fr., 7. Dez. 2018 um 05:53 Uhr schrieb Ofer Arazy :

> Thanks,  Lodewijk
>
> I'm interested in the English Wikipedia.
> I'm studying he extent to which various governance mechanisms shape an
> article's evolutionary trajectory (not going into the details of how that
> trajectory is recorded and represented). The unit of analysis is a
> particular article. My focus is on the application of mechanisms that
> intended to alleviate conflicts.
> So for the particular article mentioned - Gdansk - I would look at when
> conflicts within this article have required mediation, arbitration or
> polls.
> I'm hoping this clarifies things.
>
> Ofer
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 7:22 PM L.Gelauff  wrote:
>
> > Hi Ofer,
> >
> > Could you explain a bit more of the background what kind of questions
> > you're trying to answer? I have been looking into voting on Wikipedia
> > myself, and getting clean data is a challenge indeed.
> >
> > Are you only interested in English or also in other communities? Do you
> > refer with 'article' to the lemma around which a dispute was settled (in
> > arbitration, it's often not a particular lemma) or rather the section of
> > the rules that the ruling would refer to (quite common in Dutch, not sure
> > if it is in other languages).
> >
> > As for polls, outside the 2010 dataset on admin elections in English
> > Wikipedia, I have been unable to find any readily available data myself.
> > Most likely, you'd have to collect it from various pages and interpret
> the
> > data. It depends on the type of polls you're interested in, how straight
> > forward that is. (If I overlooked something, I would be happy to be
> > corrected!)
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Lodewijk Gelauff
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:45 PM Ofer Arazy  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > As part of my research on governance mechanisms in Wikipedia, I'm
> looking
> > > for data regarding mediation, arbitration, and polls.
> > > Are records of mediation and arbitration committees (dates, the
> article,
> > > decisions) and on voting readily available?
> > > How could I gain access to this data?
> > > I'm particularly interested on data regarding the Gdansk article (
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gda%C5%84sk), but would be happy to
> > retrieve
> > > data for other articles as well.
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance,
> > > Ofer Arazy
> > > ___
> > > 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] Definition of the death of a wiki

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello,

Interesting mail - at the moment I am busy with thinking about
chronological aspects of a wiki. One idea is that a wiki can have
a finality, that means, that the founders had only a limited goal in mind.
If accomplished, the wiki is no longer needed.
There is a paper about open source software that you might already know?
(Schweik 2014)

Kind regards
Ziko


Am Mo., 5. Nov. 2018 um 14:44 Uhr schrieb ABEL SERRANO JUSTE <
abese...@ucm.es>:

> Hello fellow researchers!
>
> We are conducting a research about "mortality in wikis" and we are looking
> for a good definition to determine when a wiki is considered "death",
> "inactive" or "abandoned".
>
> So far, I've only found this definition from Haiyi Zhu, Robert E. Kraut and
> Aniket Kittur in their paper: "The impact of membership overlap on the
> survival of online communities"
> .
> We define a community to be dormant (the inverse of active) in a given
> month if the community did not have any activity (including discussion
> pages and community pages) in the given month and the preceding two months.
>
> Any other references you could point me out? any better ideas?
>
> Thank you in advance!
> --
> Saludos,
> Abel.
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wikipedia research on "productivity"

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello,

That is very interesting. I don't know what she or he is referring
to...  How would the equation exactly look like?

As there are rules about content, and as the final goal is to provide
recipients with content they appreciate, I think that the equation
would lack important factors.

From the point of view of a certain discipline, it might be enough to
think "if content is not reverted/deleted by other editors, then it is
okay". Other researchers say: "I don't know whether this piece of
content is encyclopedic or according to the rules, as long as I have
not seen it with my own eyes."

For example: https://ksh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Faassefeld&oldid=763862
This article has not been deleted, but still it does not comply with
the Wikipedia rules. (The Wikipedia language version is Ripuarian, but
the text has been obviously copied from nds-nl.wp.)

Also: what is productivity, does this only relate to text or other
content "produced" specifically for that wiki? If someone translates
text, or imports texts, is that the same kind of "productivity"?

Kind regards
Ziko





Am Di., 2. Okt. 2018 um 05:51 Uhr schrieb Alex Yarovoy :
>
> I'm working on a research paper and one of the reviewers has commented that
> "There is even a Wikipedia measure called productivity, which is
> essentially the amount of text produced over time less the reverted text"
>
> Anybody familiar with that metric of "productivity"?
>
> Any pointers would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Ofer
> ___
> 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!

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello Kerry,

Sorry, I did not see all the mails and the context before.

I remember a gentleman in a training lesson who wanted to write about his
grandfather. Notability no problem, and no obvious bias. Why not assume
Good Faith. But still, one might ask oneself whether this is an ideal
situation. It is tricky. In general I totally agree that the hostility is a
problem.

Kind regards
Ziko


Kerry Raymond  schrieb am Sa. 29. Sep. 2018 um
08:27:

> Well, I run training and events. The folk who turn up to these are always
> good faith, typically middle-aged and older, mostly women, and of
> above-average education for their age (our oldest Australians will not all
> have had the opportunity to go to high school) and generally acceptable IT
> skills. I think most of them are capable of being good contributors and
> their errors are mostly unintentional, e.g. copyright is not always well
> understood and so there are photo uploads from “family albums” or “our
> local history collection” where the provenance of the image is unknown  and
> hence its copyright status is unclear. But off-line activities like mine
> are too few in number to make a significant impact on en.WP. We have to get
> better at attracting and on-boarding people via on-line.
>
>
>
> Obviously on my watchlist I see plenty of  blatant and subtle vandalism,
> so I am not naïve about that, but I do also see what appears to be good
> faith behaviour from newbies too. I suspect people who only see their
> watchlist have a more negative view about newbies than I do.
>
>
>
> So, yes, we may have to filter out some of the good faith folks if their
> behaviour remains problematic, but reverting them for any small problem in
> their early edits certainly isn’t proving to be an effective strategy.
>
>
>
> Kerry
>
>
>
> *From:* Ziko van Dijk [mailto:zvand...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, 29 September 2018 3:27 PM
> *To:* Research into Wikimedia content and communities <
> wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>; kerry.raym...@gmail.com
> *Cc:* Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight 
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia
> survey are published!
>
>
>
> 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
>

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

[Ziko van Dijk]

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: 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 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
> 

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Anonymous editing

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello Kevin Crowston,

THank you for the link. I have read your paper about the initial phase and
profited very much from it.

My personal opinion on UP editing, not backed by research: IP editing has
negative social consequences for the community. This negative side is not
quite visible when only looking quantitatively at huge data.

Kind regards
Ziko



Kevin G Crowston  schrieb am Mi. 19. Sep. 2018 um 18:41:

> Jonathan Cardy  werespielchequ...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> In case I didn’t make it clear, I am very much of the camp that IP editing
> is our lifeline, the way we recruit new members.
>
> Tangentially elated to this question, we have a forthcoming paper at the
> CSCW conference about how research conclusions change when anonymous work
> (e.g., IP editing) is taken into account. We looked at data from a citizen
> science project. Short answer: it makes a difference.
>
> The paper isn’t up on the ACM DL yet, but you can see it here:
> https://crowston.syr.edu/node/756
>
> Doing the study requires access to IP addresses for logged in users, so
> someone at WMF would have to do the study for Wikipedia, which would be
> really interesting and would speak to the question of whether IP editing is
> a gateway to further editing.
>
>
> Kevin Crowston
> Associate Dean for Research, Distinguished Professor of Information Science
> School of Information Studies
>
> +1 (315) 443.1676
> crows...@syr.edu
>
> 348 Hinds Hall, Syracuse, NY 13244
> crowston.syr.edu 
>
> Syracuse University
> Most recent publication:  Kevin Crowston, Isabelle Fagnot. (2018). Stages
> of motivation for contributing user-generated content: A theory and
> empirical test. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 109,
> 89-101,  doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2017.08.005<
> http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2017.08.005> .
>
> Check out our new research coordination network on Work in the Age of
> Intelligent Machine:  http://waim.network/
>
> ___
> 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] Reader use of Wikipedia and Commons categories

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello,

A very interesting question. From my experience and talks with readers, I
have the impression that readers usually take no notice of the categories.
I could not find out why, because the category system may be indeed useful
for at least some use cases.

When it comes to Commons, I would be very interested to learn how many
readers (or recipients) are actually non Wikipedia editors.

Kind regards
Ziko



2018-05-24 19:09 GMT+02:00 Leila Zia :

> Hi Pine,
>
> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 9:46 PM, Pine W  wrote:
> > 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?
>
> I don't know of recent (or old) studies on this topic, but there are
> at least a few other things we know that can help you think about
> whether it's useful to work on the category network in different
> projects.
>
> Categories are used by (at least) three different groups:
> * Editors
> * Readers
> * Machines
>
> We don't know all the use-cases that categories have for these groups.
> It seems that generally editors use them to organize their work and
> make the article space more navigable, readers use them to explore
> content (in a more serendipitous way), and machines use them
> extensively for a variety of applications. [We do miss published work
> about what I just said, btw, and I really hope us or someone else
> writes more about it in the coming year or two.:)]
>
> While we're trying to figure out what the exact answer for the two
> first groups are, it's helpful to think about the last group:
>
> Wikipedia category network, with its known caveats, has been used
> extensively by researchers to build new insights and technologies. A
> lot of research on alignment of text across languages (which is in
> turn used in building dictionaries and automatic translation tools)
> takes advantage of this (for the most part) human curated
> categorization of articles. It's an important side-product of building
> the encyclopedia (and other projects). I'll give you a couple of
> examples (non-comprehensive), feel free to dig in the literature
> review of these papers for more:
>
> * The usage of Wikipedia category network for telling apart classes
> from instances: https://dl.acm.org/authorize.cfm?key=N655914 (a
> necessary step in knowledge base creation)
>
> * In building YAGO: http://www2007.wwwconference.org/papers/paper391.pdf
>
> * Using Wikipedia category network for building section recommendation
> systems for Wikipedia: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1804.05995.pdf , Check
> for example, http://gapfinder.wmflabs.org/en.wikipedia.org/v1/section/
> article/Barack_Obama
>
> There is significant value in Wikipedia Category Network, I would not
> discourage editors from building it. I do hope they know what value
> this work brings to, at least, the research and scientific community.
>
> Best,
> Leila
>
> > 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 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] Generation of Wikipedia Summaries from Wikidata in Underserved Languages using Deep Learning

[Ziko van Dijk]

Thank you Lucie, for taking the effort to answer in detail. As I said, I am
afraid I cannot really understand your paper as I come from the humanities.
And of course, a study about reader expectations was not part of your paper
and research. For me personally, I would start there, and I know that
Wikipedia research had always more attention for contributors than for
readers.

You are opening a new issue actually: what is useful for readers, that is
one thing. The other thing is: does an ArticlePlaceholder help an editor to
improve an article. I would suppose that it is best to start the article on
your own, but that may depend on the topic of the article.

I do speak Esperanto, by chance. :-)
https://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzanto:Ziko

Kind regards,
Ziko

Lucie-Aimée Kaffee  schrieb am Sa. 7. Apr. 2018 um
16:24:

> Hello Ziko,
>
> Thanks for your mail! I responded inline below.
>
> On 6 April 2018 at 03:04, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > A most interesting thread, as it touches the topic from different
> angles. I
> > agree that it needs actually a study among readers about their
> preferences.
> >
> As I mentioned to Leila, the ESWC paper does work with editors, but I
> agree, more thought and work should be done on actual Wikipedia readers.
>
> >
> > Personally, I may have some doubt whether it improves an
> ArticlePlaceholder
> > to create sentences from the data (as they did in the geographical
> > "articles" created by bots). The data itself is most suitable for
> > databases, to be looked up in a table. Reading "Berlin has 3,500,000
> > million inhabitants" is not really an improvement compared to "Berlin /
> > inhabitants: 3,500,000".
> >
> > Sentences have the most power when they combine information to knowledge,
> > like in "Berlin's population, currently 3,500,000, has been much
> different
> > during the Cold War because of the declining attractiveness for
> > businesses".
> >
> > In general, I would advise against one-sentence-summaries; a reader might
> > be disappointed when he comes via Google to a website and then only finds
> > one sentence.
> >
>
> Just to clarify: the summaries do generate information from multiple
> triples. Basically means, the sentences are a bit more complex than just
> verbalizing one triple per sentence. However, even with a neural network,
> there is a limit to how much context we can produce for each sentence.
> Therefore, we integrated the question of how editors work with the data, as
> we see it an important aspect of the workflow. Basically,
> ArticlePlaceholder can be a better option than no information at all, but
> still the ideal would be an actual editor picking up a topic and writing
> and maintaining a full article.
> Furthermore, in our current (theoretical) design we still keep all the
> information available from Wikidata in forms of triples. Therefore, we
> don't replace any information, we just add a sentence that's more reader
> friendly and gives a first overview, before looking at pure triples.
>
> >
> > (I hope I understood the question well; I cannot follow the math in your
> > article. Is there anywhere an example of your "summaries" to read?)
> >
> The summaries are learned from the first sentence of Wikipedia, therefore
> they contain the same kind of structure and content. If you're able to read
> Arabic or Esperanto, generated sentences can be found here:
>
> https://github.com/pvougiou/Mind-the-Language-Gap/tree/master/Results/Our%20Model
>
> Cheers,
> Lucie
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 2018-04-05 22:50 GMT+02:00 Leila Zia :
> >
> > > Hi Lucie-Aimée,
> > >
> > > Nice to see work in this direction is progressing. Some comments
> in-line.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 7:49 AM, Lucie-Aimée Kaffee  >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Therefore, we worked on producing sentences from the information on
> > > > Wikidata in the given language. We trained a neural network model,
> the
> > > > details can be found in the preprint of the NAACL paper here:
> > > > https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.07116
> > >
> > > It would be good to do human (both readers and editors, and perhaps
> > > both sets) evaluations for this research, too, to better understand
> > > how well the model is doing from the perspective of the experienced
> > > editors in some of the smaller languages as well as their readers. (I
> > > acknowledge that finding experienced editors when you go to small
> > >

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Generation of Wikipedia Summaries from Wikidata in Underserved Languages using Deep Learning

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello,

A most interesting thread, as it touches the topic from different angles. I
agree that it needs actually a study among readers about their preferences.

Personally, I may have some doubt whether it improves an ArticlePlaceholder
to create sentences from the data (as they did in the geographical
"articles" created by bots). The data itself is most suitable for
databases, to be looked up in a table. Reading "Berlin has 3,500,000
million inhabitants" is not really an improvement compared to "Berlin /
inhabitants: 3,500,000".

Sentences have the most power when they combine information to knowledge,
like in "Berlin's population, currently 3,500,000, has been much different
during the Cold War because of the declining attractiveness for businesses".

In general, I would advise against one-sentence-summaries; a reader might
be disappointed when he comes via Google to a website and then only finds
one sentence.

(I hope I understood the question well; I cannot follow the math in your
article. Is there anywhere an example of your "summaries" to read?)

Kind regards
Ziko








2018-04-05 22:50 GMT+02:00 Leila Zia :

> Hi Lucie-Aimée,
>
> Nice to see work in this direction is progressing. Some comments in-line.
>
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 7:49 AM, Lucie-Aimée Kaffee 
> wrote:
> >
> > Therefore, we worked on producing sentences from the information on
> > Wikidata in the given language. We trained a neural network model, the
> > details can be found in the preprint of the NAACL paper here:
> > https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.07116
>
> It would be good to do human (both readers and editors, and perhaps
> both sets) evaluations for this research, too, to better understand
> how well the model is doing from the perspective of the experienced
> editors in some of the smaller languages as well as their readers. (I
> acknowledge that finding experienced editors when you go to small
> languages can become hard.)
>
> > Furthermore, we would love to hear your input: Do you believe, one
> sentence
> > summaries are enough, can we serve the communities needs better with more
> > than one sentence?
>
> This is a hard question to answer. :) The answer may rely on many
> factors including the language you want to implement such a system in
> and the expectation the users of the language have in terms of online
> content available to them in their language.
>
> > Is this still true if longer abstracts would be of lower
> > text quality?
>
> same as above. You are signing yourself up for more experiments. ;)
>
> I would be interested to know:
> * What is the perception of the readers of a given language about
> Wikipedia if a lot of articles that they go to in their language have
> one sentence (to a good extent accurate), a few sentences but with
> some errors, more sentences with more errors, versus not finding the
> article they're interested in at all?
> * Related to the above: what is the error threshold beyond which the
> brand perceptions will turn negative (to be defined: may be by
> measuring if the user returns in the coming week or month.)? This may
> well be different in different languages and cultures.
> * Depending on the result of the above, we may want to look at
> offering the user the option to access that information, but outside
> of Wikipedia, or inside Wikipedia but very clearly labeled as Machine
> Generated as you do to some extent in these projects.
>
> > What other interesting use cases for such a technology in the
> > Wikimedia world can you imagine?
>
> The technology itself can have a variety of use-cases, including
> providing captions or summaries of photos even without layers of image
> processing applied to them.
>
> Best,
> Leila
>
> > [1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ArticlePlaceholder and
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Generating_Article_
> Placeholders_from_Wikidata_for_Wikipedia_-_Increasing_
> Access_to_Free_and_Open_Knowledge.pdf
> > [2]
> > https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/413433/1/Open_Sym_Short_Paper_
> Wikidata_Multilingual.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 mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

[Wiki-research-l] Research related rules in Wikipedia language versions

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello,

At the moment I am writing about the Wikipedia rules with regard to
research. some researchers are interested in Wikipedia talk pages, others
want to interview Wikipedians, others again make „experiments“ within the
wiki in order to watch Wikipedians‘ reactions.

Researchers try to stick to some general ethics such as respecting
anonymity and not causing harm.

The CC licences do not seem to relate to research; the Terms of Use a
little bit.

To my knowledge, only Wikipedia in English has some specific lines about
research in its set of rules (e.g. with the advice to disclose research
interests on a user page). Do you know about research related rules in
other language versions?

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki Studies 1:1 Released

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello Robert,

I saw the announcement on the other mailinglist. For now I only had the
time for a brief look, but I am very happy with the initiative.
Congratulations,

Ziko

Robert E. Cummings  schrieb am Mi. 4. Okt. 2017 um
17:14:

> Hi All:
>
>
> I write to announce that Wiki Studies 1:1 is now published:
>
>
> http://wikistudies.org
>
> As readers of this list may recall, Wiki Studies is an open-access,
> peer-reviewed journal focusing on the intersection of Wikipedia and higher
> education.  Our first issue features four articles: three are case studies
> and one is a corpus analysis.
>
> Comments, suggestions, and inquires are welcome at cummi...@olemiss.edu.
> Please consider registering<
> http://wikistudies.org/index.php/wikistudies/user/register> at our OJS
> site for automatic updates.
>
> Yours,
> Robert Cummings
> Editor
>
>
> ___
> 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] Citation Project - Comments Welcome!

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello Kerry,

A lot of good points. It is about how to work collaboratively using
footnotes. It does not really occur right now, and it is difficult to
verify something without having the book at hand  - or even then.

We would need much stricter rules how to show what piece of information
does exactly come where from, and where to look for it. But in reality, I
write e.g. one paragraph in Wikipedia, summing up 2-3 pages of a book, and
then put a footnote with regard to these 2-3 pages at the end of the
paragraph. Otherwise, my process of writing would be much slower, and
possibly my summary would be worse.

This is indeed a "real world problem" (=difficult to solve for Wikipedia),
but a special one within a text with a large number of (partially
anonymous) contributors. It would help if a mouse over on existing text
could at least indicate which Wikipedia account was responsible for exactly
that text.

Kind regards,
Ziko

PS:
In your example, I'd say:
Joe Smith was born in London[1] in 1830[2].

Where [1] supports that he was born in London and [2] that he was born in
1830.




2017-05-09 17:26 GMT+02:00 Andrea Forte :

> (meant to reply all!)
>
> Kerry - right, re: real world problem, I meant that the other way around,
> we will have both the reference text and the preceding text, if either one
> changes, it'll be detectable. That won't do everything you are describing
> but it will provide the data required to think through a lot of these
> problems and come up with future approaches to understanding the link
> between a reference and the text in which it is embedded.
>
> You raise a really good point that I had totally missed - in past work I
> captured revision-related data like username/timestamp/etc. I do want to
> capture revisionid and revision-related metadata along with the reference
> text itself. I've added a note about that to the proposed data structure,
> thank you!
>
> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Kerry Raymond 
> wrote:
>
> > The only thing is that the “real life” problem is the text changing but
> > the citations stays the same. I don’t see the opposite happen much.
> >
> >
> >
> > Another thought I had was of course to preserve details of the edit which
> > added the citation initially, user, timestamp, edit summary, etc
> >
> >
> >
> > It would be interesting to find “cliques” (in the loose social sense not
> > the strict mathematical sense) of users who seem to use the same “clique
> of
> > citations”. Such groups might be sockpuppets, meatpuppets etc. Of course,
> > they might just be good faith editors accessing the same very useful
> > resources for their favourite topic area.  But I guess if you “smell a
> rat”
> > with one user or one source, then it might be handy to explore any
> > “cliques” they appear to be operating within to look for suspicious
> > activity of the others.
> >
> >
> >
> > I am not quite sure what we might learn from the edit summaries, but I
> > guess if they are not collected, we will never know if they do contain
> any
> > interesting patterns.
> >
> >
> >
> > Another thought that occurs to me is that there is at least one situation
> > when some the text of interest may follow the citation rather precede it
> > and that is list. E.g
> >
> >
> >
> > The presidents of the USA are: one reliable source about all of the
> > presidents
> >
> > ·George Washington
> >
> > ·…
> >
> > ·Donald Trump
> >
> >
> >
> > Also citations within tables pose a bit of a problem in terms of their
> > “span”. Is it just the cell with the citation? Is it more? I see tables
> > with the last column being used to hold citations for data that populates
> > that whole row.
> >
> >
> >
> > Also citations in infoboxes  where there is one field carrying some data
> > followed by a corresponding citation field, e.g. pop and pop_footnotes
> (for
> > population in infobox Australian place).
> >
> >
> >
> > The more I think about this issue, the more I despair. Not so much for
> > this project to build a citation database, but rather for the fact that
> > without any binding of article text to the citation, the connection
> between
> > them is likely to degrade as successive contributors come along and
> modify
> > the article, particularly so if they cannot access the source. I think we
> > have let ourselves be seduced into thinking that so long as we can
> **see**
> > a lot of inline citations, [1][2][3] in our article that it is
> > well-sourced, but if we really can’t explain what text is supported by
> > which source, is it really well-sourced? You might as well just add a
> > bibliography to the end and forget in-line citations. Now one might argue
> > this is just as true with a traditional journal article  (again, no
> > explicit binding of text to source), but the difference is that a
> > traditional journal article has a single author or a group of
> > tightly-coupled authors writing the journal article over a relatively
> short
> > period of time (wee

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

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello,

Does it have to be Wikipedia? Wikipedia is a reference work for
"everybody", but not especially written for pupils in the primary education.

We discussed this kind of issues at the foundation of the Klexikon, see our
report in English:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:English_version_Konzept_Wikipedia_f%C3%BCr_Kinder.pdf

Kind regards,
Ziko



2017-05-04 14:44 GMT+02:00 Heather Ford :

> Hi all,
>
> I've started working on a paper with folks who ran a fascinating project
> called "Wikipedia Primary School" [1] where they investigated different
> mechanisms or models for eliciting and developing Wikipedia content that
> was relevant to the South African national primary school curriculum. We
> are currently writing a paper that assesses each of the different types of
> "interventions" that were tested/tried out in trying to fill in these gaps
> - including editathons, contests and collaborations with scientific
> journals. It seems as though there are a host of different types of models
> that are used to fill in Wikipedia's gaps beyond the original "volunteer
> edits what interests them in their spare time" model (e.g. Wikipedians in
> residence, editing Wikipedia as part of class assignments). If anyone has
> any good references to work already undertaken in this area please let me
> know!
>
> Many thanks,
> Heather.
>
> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Primary_School
>
> Dr Heather Ford
> University Academic Fellow
> School of Media and Communications , The
> University of Leeds
> w: hblog.org / EthnographyMatters.net  /
> t:
> @hfordsa 
> ___
> 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] Journal of Wiki Studies

[Ziko van Dijk]

It would be great to have a journal of this kind; I wonder about the
description so far, whether it could be explained more systematically what
wiki studies are supposed to be. I am busy with this question right now.
Kind regards
Ziko

2017-02-22 16:00 GMT+01:00 Jaqen :

> In fact in June Bob Cummings announced here he was starting the journal ;)
>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/
> 2016-June/005253.html
>
> Jaqen
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Piotr Konieczny  wrote:
>
>> I just got an email soliciting submissions to new, open source "Journal
>> of Wiki Studies".
>>
>> I didn't see anything about this on this list yet, so...
>>
>> See http://wikistudies.org/index.php?journal=wikistudies&page=index
>>
>>
>> --
>> Piotr Konieczny, PhD
>> http://hanyang.academia.edu/PiotrKonieczny
>> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=gdV8_AEJ
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Piotrus
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Patriotic editing hypothesis

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello,

In my 2009 study I have looked at some Wikipedias and compared geographika
articles with regard to the language in question. There is a theoreme by
the socioloinguist Heinz Kloss about the "eigenbezogene Themen", topics,
that are related to the own specific linguistic community.

According to Kloss, a community is mainly interested in its own language,
culture and history, the country / landscape, and also typical crafts.
Kloss argues that there is a relatively rich literature in this language
about these topics, and much less about other topics such as aeroplane
construction.

(I noticed that the university of the Faroe islands, for example, has
courses to educate teachers and also a department for nautica and fishing.
For other subjects you'll have to leave the islands and also your native
language.)

In my comparison I checked briefly whether a language version of Wikipedia
is at least doing well in articles about its own linguistic reagion. For
example, someone who is interested in the Dutch province of Friesland will
find for about equally much information in Frisian Wikipedia and Dutch
Wikipedia. (At least, in 2008/2009.) This was not the case for Corsican and
French Wikipedia, with Corsican Wikipedia being much weaker.

I wouldn't call the phenomenon "patriotic editing" because that implies a
certain intention that the individual contributors might not have. If I
translate Kloss' term, it should be something more like "self related
contributing" or "contents with regard to the own (linguistic)
community/society".

By the way, I don't think that translations from Wikipedia to Wikipedia are
the best way to create good content. An article about Paris in Dutch has to
differ from the article in French, as you have a different readership with
different backgrounds and interests.

Kind regards
Ziko










2017-01-25 8:20 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen :

> Hoi,
> A similar thing can be found when you look at the history of a country.
> Indonesia and Malaysia have much better articles than English Wikipedia. In
> the same way, the content of western nobility is much better served in
> Wikidata than the content for Asian nobility.
>
> This is to be expected.
>
> The point of the original thread is how to measure the effectiveness of a
> chapter. To give a chapter credit for what it does, you will find that
> finding a truth in data is highly problematic when you seek a general rule.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> On 24 January 2017 at 16:27, Peter Ekman  wrote:
>
>> Regarding Kerry Raymond's "Patriotic editing hypothesis", I've done
>> some very simple informal investigation regarding the quality of
>> geographic articles, these are mostly on cities, towns, counties, etc.
>> in en:Wikipedia.  Geographic articles have much lower average quality
>> scores than other subjects (see
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Smallbones/Quality4by4 )
>> With just a small bit of poking around it's obvious that the quality
>> difference between geo articles and the rest is due to geo articles
>> about countries where English is not the native language. A bit more
>> poking and something that should have been really obvious jumps out.
>> French geo articles on FR:Wiki are much better (at least longer) than
>> the corresponding EN:Wiki article; Russian geo articles are much
>> better on RU:Wiki than on EN:Wiki, etc.
>>
>> This is certainly consistent with the "Patriotic editing hypothesis"
>> if we define patriotism by language rather than by borders.  It could
>> be checked out with other language versions e.g. German vs. French;
>> (Finnish, Estonian, Polish, German, or Hungarian, etc.) vs.Russian;
>> Chinese vs. any language.
>>
>> The hypothesis even had a very practical implication - we should
>> translate more geo articles from their native language Wikipedias.
>>
>> Hope this helps,
>> Pete Ekman
>> 
>> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 11:12:58 +1000
>> From: "Kerry Raymond" 
>> To: "'Research into Wikimedia content and communities'"
>> 
>> Subject: [Wiki-research-l] regional KPIs
>> Message-ID: <006701d275df$02016b90$060442b0$@gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> As previously came up in discussion about chapters, it would be very
>> useful
>> to have national data about Wikipedia activities, which can be determined
>> (generally) from IP addresses. Now I understand the privacy argument in
>> relation to logged-in users (not saying I agree with it though in relation
>> to aggregate data). However, can we find a proxy that does not have the
>> privacy considerations.
>>
>>
>>
>> My hypothesis is that national content is predominantly written by users
>> resident in that nation. And that therefore activity on national content
>> can
>> be used as a proxy for national user editing activity.
>>
>>
>>
>> In the case of Australia, we could describe Australian national content in
>> either of two ways: articles within the closure of the
>> [[Category:Australia]] and/or those tagged as  {{W

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Chapters

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello Aisha,

Indeed there is not much research on Wikimedia affiliates (chapters or
other). What are you specifically interested in, for what research purpose?
In sociology, history, management science? :-)

Kind regards
Ziko

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ziko





2017-01-10 12:56 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen :

> Hoi,
> Return on investment is in our context all too arbitrary. Ask yourself; is
> investing in gender gap important but does it make the best return on
> investment. At the time I invested in documenting every person who died in
> Wikidata. It was a good investment because now people have taken over from
> me. Now at years end they use Wikidata to know who the "famous" people are.
>
> The question is not bang for the buck. The question is where are we weak
> and how can we change this. My current project is adding information about
> the nobility, the monarchs of particularly Asia. I am learning as I am
> doing this and I blog about it. All the investments in students working on
> Wikipedia does not make the quality of the subjects I write about better.
> Many of the stuff I am involved with has a point of view that I find is
> hardly neutral. It is however not the subjects students are taught.
>
> When a chapter, a community finds that a specific area is important to
> them, they should be able to do so. Their relevance and work / investment
> is not to be mistaken for a provable "return on investment". Because of the
> gender gap I do give more time to the women I find. That awareness is
> something you cannot measure but it does have a bearing. People with proper
> historic knowledge could do much more; they would study the relationship
> between marriages and peace between countries when they are ruled by
> monarchs. They would bring this out. At this time we do not even have many
> of the important battles and wars from the past... I am not saying this is
> more important but it paints the picture.
>
> When you want return on investment, there are the things people do not
> care about because it means that it changes the way things are. The best
> return on investment for Wikidata is by replacing red links and wiki links
> with references to Wikidata items. I dare anyone to find an argument how it
> will not bring more quality to any Wikipedia.
>
> My point is that we will only look into the things that we know and care
> for and in the process forget what we do it for. Money / investment is more
> of the same. I prefer that we trust more and do not measure using our own
> yard stick.
>
> NB I am into meters and metric myself :)
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 10 January 2017 at 11:30, Jane Darnell  wrote:
>
>> What's wrong with "return on investment"? And what is a "term of art"
>> exactly? I agree with Kerry and Pine both about the frustrations, but I
>> also agree with Asaf in terms of all the improvements WMF has made. The
>> problem with making a yearly chapter plan is the lack of knowledge on what
>> "impact" (still better than any other word) was achieved the previous year,
>> making estimation nearly impossible. For the Dutch chapter, the various
>> projects (WLM etc) have been able to come up with their own measurements
>> over time. The problem with any new project is that there is never anything
>> to base estimates on. I am a terrible estimator myself (even when I have
>> pretty good data to base my estimate on), but I enjoy finding creative ways
>> to measure things. Right now we are in general terrible at measuring
>> project-related chapter stuff, and the stuff we are good at measuring is
>> hard to share with the people who need it most (see Asaf's comments about
>> active editors).
>>
>> Last night I had a long skype-chat with my gendergap friends in NL and we
>> were plotting what we can measure now as a way of being able to measure
>> impact after some (soon-to-be-dreamed-up) international women's day editing
>> event in March. One of the problems with measuring edits is the need for
>> anonymity that Asaf and Kerry talk about. So we need to somehow capture
>> aggregated measurements, but how can we do this and how do we define a
>> "gendergap-related edit"? Theoretically this is an edit made either by a
>> new or existing editor -or- about a woman, and either one is prompted not
>> by something random (organic growth model of Wikimedia projects such as
>> Wikipedia), but specifically by something in our gendergap workgroup
>> "output" (whatever that is). The return on investment (=what we get for
>> giving our personal time) is the increase in such edits over time. At the
>> end of the day, we need to measure "our" increase of aggregated edits
>> against the "normal" increase in aggregated edits, and if we can never
>> measure this, why don't we all just shut up and go back to editing? Well I
>> believe that these efforts will at some point become measurable and I have
>> good faith that these efforts are not just "drops in the bucket". Sometimes
>> it helps to 

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

[Ziko van Dijk]

Dear Sidd,

Thank you for your multiple replies to this list. I am happy to see the
commitment to find the balance between research needs and the needs and
ethics for a complicated website/community as Wikipedia is.

I hope that the comments on this list don't shock you, even if they appear
sometimes to be a little harsh. But this comes from the long time
dedication of people who are involved in Wikipedia in several ways.

And honestly, the Wikimedia movement, the WMF, the community etc. still
don't have a thorough and coherent concept about Wikipedia related
research. We don't want to forbid it in general, but we had some very
unpleasant experiences in the past. Anybody but the "community" can only
recommend on good practices, and getting a clear opinion from the community
can be difficult.

My impression is that researchers sometimes want to test the social system
of Wikipedia, to see it as a kind of social instrument in which the "crowd
intelligence" evaluates content and rejects or accepts it. The quality
assessment of the content produced is passed on to the "crowd inteligence".

Actually, in a certain way I do the same when I write a Wikipedia article:
it can be refused by the community or not. The difference is in the motive:
I want to improve Wikipedia, not to test a social system. Therefore, I
carefully read and reread my texts before putting them on Wikipedia. But
someone who wants to create articles automatically and then have the social
system tests them, puts them unedited on Wikipedia in order not to "spoil"
the results.

I can fully understand when Wikipedians and others regard this behavior as
an abuse of Wikipedia. And for any researcher, the final problem will
always be that "Wikipedia" cannot be a partner for the researcher. The
Wikipedia community wouldn't agree to have researchers contribute
questionable content for the purpose of testing the social system / the
quality of content. They tend to regard this behavior of researchers as a
kind of vandalism.

We have seen this in all varieties, e.g. when someone gives a presentation
about Wikipedia and deliberately vandalises an article in order to
demonstrate how quickly the social system responds to vandalism. I find it
also questionable when a teacher lets students contribute articles and
attributes credit points depending on wether the article is deleted or not,
or becomes a featured article. That is in my view a kind of outsourcing of
the evaluation that should be done by the teacher himself - based on his
own, pedagogical criteria, not on the encyclopedical and sometimes strange
decisions of the Wikipedia community.

As others have noted, there are several ethical problems that can occur,
e.g. with regard to multiple accounts.

Sorry for the long mail.

Kind regards
Ziko


Am Montag, 15. August 2016 schrieb siddhartha banerjee :

> Agreed about the people issue.
> Editors were made to edit/delete without consent.
> IRB application also will be added to this list.
>
> - Sidd
>
>
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

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

[Ziko van Dijk]

Gerard, Johnathan simply meant "... The default on [English] Wikipedia" in
that sentence. I appreciate him writing explicitly "English Wikipedia" in
the first sentence, as rules can differ.
He pointed out that there are special rules in (most or any) Wikipedia
language versions with regard to medical topics.
So, the more important, to point out what exactly are possible problems
with content created under reseach or educational conditions.
Ziko


Am Freitag, 12. August 2016 schrieb Gerard Meijssen :

> Hoi,
> That this is only relevant to English Wikipedia is new to me. The problem
> exists for any and all projects. When you think that erroneous information
> elsewhere does not have the potential to hurt people or that information
> from Wikidata may not be exposed in English Wikipedia, I am sorry for
> having an opinion.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 12 August 2016 at 11:16, Jonathan Cardy  > wrote:
>
>> This is medical information in the English Wikipedia so English Wikipedia
>> policies apply. The rules of Medical sourcing are stricter than the default
>> on Wikipedia, this is due to the extra risk involved in medical matters, as
>> well as the ongoing problems with the alternative health lobby.
>>
>> That some transgressions have not yet been detected does not justify a
>> transgression as part of a research project.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>> On 12 Aug 2016, at 09:50, Gerard Meijssen > > wrote:
>>
>> Hoi,
>> There is plenty of medical information that is thoroughly debunked that
>> is finding its way into Wikidata on the strength of "it is included in
>> another data source and that makes it ok". So when you talk about potential
>> harm, when is it ok to include damaging information based on it blindly
>> copying it from another "trusted" source and when do you consider it
>> medical information that may do harm?
>> Thanks,
>>   GerardM
>>
>> On 12 August 2016 at 10:38, Stuart A. Yeates > > wrote:
>>
>>> It's worth noting that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talonid appears
>>> (in so far as I can grasp what it's about) to at least verge on being
>>> medical information.
>>>
>>> Medical information is subject to specific laws and an exceedingly brave
>>> place to start a research project like this. In terms of potential harm to
>>> research subjects (=readers of wikipedia) it pretty much hits the jackpot.
>>>
>>> cheers
>>> stuart
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 8:22 PM, Kerry Raymond >> > wrote:
>>>
 And to its policies

 http://guru.psu.edu/policies/RP03.html

 With particular reference to

 "Intervention includes both physical procedures by which data are
 gathered (for example, venipuncture) and manipulations of the participant
 or the participant’s environment that are performed for research purposes."

 Putting that articles into Wikipedia manipulated the environment of
 Wikipedia readers and editors.

 Now I am not saying that huge harm was done, you would have to ask
 those who subsequently edited the articles (a known group) and those who
 read the articles (an unknown group) to find out if they are unhappy about
 what took place.

 What I am saying is that if consideration had been given to the
 question who is impacted by this research plan, the maybe the research plan
 would have been redesigned to prevent the problem, and we would not have to
 have this conversation.

 Kerry

 Sent from my iPad

 On 12 Aug 2016, at 6:08 PM, Kerry Raymond >>> > wrote:

 I draw attention to Penn State's IRB website

 https://www.research.psu.edu/irb/submit

 Sent from my iPad

 On 12 Aug 2016, at 6:03 PM, Kerry Raymond >>> > wrote:

 I am asking you to share the documentation of the ethical clearance or
 exemption your institution would have required, not what people did or
 didn't say to you as part of conference reviewing or at conferences.
 Ethical clearance is a process that should have been undertaken before your
 research commenced, not when you are writing the paper or attending a
 conference. Are you saying you undertook the research without any
 consideration of the ethics? Does your university have no guidelines about
 this?

 The Wikipedia guidelines about content analysis are not particularly
 relevant here. You were not analysing existing Wikipedia articles but
 injecting new articles of dubious quality into Wikipedia.

 Nor is the data about individuals my point. If you wasted people's time
 reacting to the articles created, you did them harm. If people derived
 incorrect information from reading your articles, you did them harm. None
 of those people were aware they were part of your research experiment; that
 means they did not have informed consent in relation to choosing to
 participate

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

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello,

Do we have a collection of already existing and relevant policies and
statements, at least for English Wikipedia? On Meta I found this page
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_Research_Management
which main statement is that research is too various and complex to give
some few recommendations.

At first sight, I find it difficult to read something relevant from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not

I imagine that guidelines could be helpful with regard to a) research that
includes editing wiki pages, b) the editing of students or pupils for
educational purposes.

Research and educational activity should not disturb the efforts of the
Wikipedia community to create and improve encyclopedic content. Disturbance
can occur from creating sub standard content and involving in activities
that disrupts work flows. ...

This guidelines could be only a recommendation, as long the Wikipedia
communities don't change their rules. But it'd be great, anyway, if the
guidelines can be based somehow on existing Wikipedia rules.

Kind regards
Ziko





2016-08-12 0:41 GMT+02:00 Denny Vrandečić :

> So here's the list of accounts that were used in order to create the
> articles:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Brownweepy
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Theatremania
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bhopebhai
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dicdac123
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MightyPepper
>
> Also some edits may have been done through IPs.
>
> In discussion with Sidd it was clear that they did not plan to ever
> mass-create a large number of articles, and it is only these 50 articles or
> so we can clean up now. I am not terribly worried about this particular
> work (according to the paper there were 47 surviving articles at the time
> of writing, i.e. in Spring).
>
> What I am concerned about is the fact that there will be more such
> experiments from other groups. It would be great to set up a few rules for
> this kind of behavior, so that we can at least point to them. If the only
> rule that was broken here was the "don't use multiple accounts" rule, I am
> not sure whether that would be sufficient.
>
> Cheers,
> Denny
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 1:47 AM Stuart A. Yeates 
> wrote:
>
>> * The previous work you cite appears to have created articles in the
>> draft namespace rather than the article namespace. This is a very important
>> and very relevant detail, meaning your situation is in no way comparable to
>> the previous work from my point of view
>> * You appear to be solving a problem that the community of wikipedia
>> editors does not have. We have enough low-quality stub articles that need
>> human effort to improve and we're not really interested in more unless
>> either (a) they demonstrably combat some of the systematic biases we're
>> struggling with or (b) they demonstrably attract new cohorts users to do
>> that improvement. Note that the examples discussed in the research
>> newsletter are a non-English writer and a women writer. These are important
>> details.
>> * Your paper appears not to attempt to make any attempt to measure the
>> statistical significance of your results; this isn't science.
>> * Most of your sources are _really_ _really_ bad.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talonid Contains 8 unique refs, one of
>> which is good, one of which is a passable and the others should be removed
>> immediately (but I won't because it'll make it harder for third parties
>> reading this conversation to follow it.).
>>
>> If you want to properly evaluate your technique, try this: Randomly pick
>> N articles from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_lacking_
>> sources subcats splitting them into control and subjects randomly. Parse
>> each subject article for sentences that your system appears to understand.
>> For each sentence your thing you understand look for reliable sources to
>> support that sentence. Add a single ref to a single statement in each
>> article. Add all the refs using a single account with a message on the user
>> page about the nature of the edits. If you're not able to add any refs,
>> mark it as a failure. Measure article lifespan for each group.
>>
>> If you're in a hurry and want fast results, work with articles less than
>> a week old (hint: articles IDs are numerically increasing sequence) or the
>> intersection of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_lacking_
>> sources subcats and Category:Articles_for_deletion Both of these groups
>> of articles are actively being considered for deletion.
>>
>> cheers
>> stuart
>>
>>
>> --
>> ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 9:30 AM, siddhartha banerjee 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Everyone,
>>>
>>> I am the first author of the paper that Denny has referred. Firstly, I
>>> want to thank Denny for asking me to join this list 

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

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello Denny,

I agree with all three points. The experiment reminds me of "babelfish
accidents" as we called them in de.WP, and the experimemts of Google and
Microsoft to "support" "translations" between Wikipedias.

Very strange this repeating "Dick Barbour is legendary in..."

Kind regards
Ziko


2016-08-09 20:29 GMT+02:00 Denny Vrandečić :

> Hi all,
>
> I found a paper at IJCAI 2016, which left me quite curious:
> https://siddbanpsu.github.io/publications/ijcai16-banerjee.pdf
>
> In short, they find red links, classify them, find the closest similar
> articles, use the section titles from these articles to decide on sections,
> search for content for the sections, paraphrase it, and write complete
> Wikipedia articles.
>
> Then they uploaded the articles to Wikipedia, and from the 50 uploaded
> articles, only 3 got deleted. The rest stayed. I was rather excited when I
> heard that - where the articles really that good?
>
> Then I took a look at the articles and... well, judge for yourself. The
> paper only mentions three articles of the 47 survivors:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Barbour
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atripliceae (here is the last version as
> created by the bot before significant human clean-up: https://en.
> wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atripliceae&oldid=697456858 )
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talonid
>
> I have connected with the first author and he promised me to give a list
> of all articles as soon as he can get it, which will be in a few weeks
> because he is away from his university computer right now. He was able to
> produce one more article though:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Bianchetti_Garbato
>
> (Also, see history for the extent of human clean-up)
>
> I am not writing to talk badly about the authors or about the reviewing
> practice at IJCAI, or about the state of research in that area. Also, I
> really do not want to discourage research in this area.
>
> I have a few questions, though:
>
> 1) the fact that so many of these articles have survived for half a year
> indicates that there are some problems with our review processes. Does
> someone want to make an investigation why these articles survived in the
> given state?
>
> 2) as far as I know we don't have rules for this kind of experiments, but
> maybe we should. In particular, I feel, that, BLPs should not be created by
> an experimental approach like this one. Should we set up rules for this
> kind of experiments?
>
> 3) Wikipedia contributors are participating in these experiments without
> consent. I find that worrysome, and would like to hear what others think.
>
> I have invited the first author to join this list.
>
> I understand the motivation: by exposing from the beginning that these
> articles were created by bots, they would have been scrutinized differently
> than articles written by humans. Therefore they remained quiet about the
> fact (but are willing to reveal it now, now that the experiment is over -
> they also explicitly don't have any intentions of expanding the scope of
> the experiment at the given point of time).
>
> Cheers,
> Denny
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] ORES going into production

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello,

Thanks for the mail. Actually, I read these documentation pages (again
and again) and I still don't unterstand it.

Imagine, I have seen a specific edit:
https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reiss-Engelhorn-Museen&curid=1176135&diff=17646&oldid=17077

Where is the page with a form where I can copy this, in order to be
told whether the edit was made in good faith or not?

Kind regards
Ziko






2016-06-22 20:08 GMT+02:00 Aaron Halfaker :
> Hey folks,
>
> We (The Revision Scoring Team[1]) are happy to announce the deployment of
> the ORES service[2] in production at a new address:
> https://ores.wikimedia.org.  This will replace the old Wikimedia Labs
> address soon: https://ores.wmflabs.org.  Along with this new location, we
> are running on more predictable infrastructure that will allow us to
> increase our uptime and to make the service available to MediaWiki and
> extensions directly.
>
> We've also begun deploying the ORES review tool[3] as a beta feature on
> Wikidata and Persian Wikipedia in order trial the fully integrated
> extension.  Once enabled, the ORES review tool highlights edits that are
> likely to be damaging in Special:RecentChanges to help you prioritize your
> patrolling work. ORES is an experimental technology.  We encourage you to
> take advantage of it but also to be skeptical of the predictions made.
> Please reach out to us with your questions and concerns.
>
> We'll soon begin to deploy the ORES review tool to more wikis.  Next up are
> English, Portuguese, Russian, Dutch and Turkish Wikipedias.  We can deploy
> to these wikis because those communities have completed Wiki labels[4]
> campaigns that help train ORES' classifiers to differentiate good-faith
> mistakes from vandalism.  If you'd like to get the ORES review tool deployed
> in your wiki, please reach out to us for help setting up or completing a
> Wiki labels campaign on your local wiki.  Wikimania participants can also
> attend our workshop[5] during the hackathon to get setting up ORES  for your
> local wiki.
>
> Documentation:
>  * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/ORES_review_tool
>  * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ORES
>  * https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Objective_Revision_Evaluation_Service
> Bugs & feature requests:
> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/revision-scoring-as-a-service-backlog/
> IRC: #wikimedia-ai[6]
>
> 1.
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Revision_scoring_as_a_service#Team
> 2. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Objective_Revision_Evaluation_Service
> 3. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/ORES_review_tool
> 4. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_labels
> 5. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T134628
> 6. https://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=#wikimedia-ai
>
> Stay tuned for an update about deprecation of ores.wmflabs.org and
> announcements of support for new wikis.  Please feel free to reach out to us
> with any questions/ideas.
>
> -Aaron
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Data on editathons held in each Wikipedia Language?

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello,

I am not sure whether I understood well your first sentence - what is
a "gendered biography" of a Wikipedia language?

You use the term "editaton". What is this exactly? I met at least
three different uses:
* an informal meeting of Wikipedians, to sit together and work on
their laptops, with the goal of producing content
* a Wikipedia training course, for non Wikipedians
* a mixture of both, or a more formal meeting e.g. of Wikipedians with
GLAM people

Maybe you find information about the related work in the chapters via
the reports for the Annual Plan Grants.

Kind regards
Ziko


2015-12-08 4:34 GMT+01:00 Maximilian Klein :
> Researchians,
>
> I have a been collecting data on the gendered biographies of different
> Wikipedia Languages from Wikidata dumps, with the question of trying to
> understand the gender gap in content. After reading about Propensity Score
> Matching[1] today, I see it would be possible to test a (close to) causal
> link between the genders of Wikipedia Biographies being added to a language,
> and Editathon activity. Yet we'd need the data for editathon activity. Is it
> compiled somewhere, or can you think of how it could be compiled?
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propensity_score_matching The idea in
> propensity score matching is to pretend a randomized experiment is being
> conducted, and to find a "control group" - a similar but untreated language,
> for each "treated group".
>
>
> Make a great day,
> Max Klein ‽ http://notconfusing.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] New editor retention rates Visual Editor vs Wikitext

[Ziko van Dijk]

Thank you for sharing your very illuminating thoughts, Kerry. Indeed
it should be the most compelling advantage of the VE that people after
a while of inactivity don't have to learn wikicode again. I am curious
how research will tackle the multiplicity of factors involved.
The newbies assuming that others know that they are in a training
situation... accidently, just today I thought about the problem of
assessing edits from newbies. In theory, we could "label" newbies in
Wikipedia training courses so that their "status" is visible to the
community. But for typical Wikipedia reasons we don't do that.

Kind regards
Ziko



2015-11-04 0:43 GMT+01:00 Kerry Raymond :
> On the edit training session front, I can report on the sample size of 1 VE
> edit training session in mid August, where the two trainees both aged 60+
> took to editing relatively quickly in under an hour, which compares
> favourably with the half day to a day it often takes to cover the same
> ground in the source editor due to the lack of comfort with markup. Both
> trainees did a few edits after the training session but neither appears to
> be currently active. I certainly intend to teach future sessions using the
> VE.
>
>
>
> But the research question I would pose is “does edit training make any
> difference?” I’ve done loads of it but I haven’t noticed that it creates
> ongoing contributors. Most people come away from the session very positive
> but, when I’ve bothered to check, most don’t edit again. Having said that,
> after my own initial edits, I too became inactive for a year or so before
> doing some very sporadic edits over a number of years before getting active,
> so it may be that people do resurface months/years later (possibly creating
> a new username/password as they have forgotten their old one).
>
>
>
> Now I have thought that maybe the difficulty remembering the markup
> weeks/months later might be a contributory factor to this apparent failure
> to create active editors and that maybe switching to the VE will make a
> difference. But deep down, I am not convinced that the problem of creating
> active editors is just about training. And I think Aaron’s study somewhat
> supports this. I think the problem with edit training is twofold.
>
>
>
> 1.   People with a burning desire to edit don’t sit around waiting for
> an edit training opportunity. Edit training attracts the “just in case”
> learners, who think it might be useful to know how to edit Wikipedia. People
> with a burning desire to edit just click on “Edit” and hope they can make it
> work. Q. Is the VE enabled for anon editing? (I just logged out to test it
> and it does not appear to be – why not? Surely anon editors should be dumped
> into VE by default or offered both?)
>
>
>
> 2.   The routine beating up of newbies. One of the joys of edit training
> is seeing just how unpleasant our community can be to newcomers. In most
> edit training sessions, trainees experience reverted contributions, quality
> tagging, etc, without any attempt to reach out and help them make their good
> faith contributions (anyone who comes to edit training is good faith, I have
> never seen any of them attempt to vandalise). The trainees find this
> somewhat upsetting. It is interesting to note that many assume other editors
> should know they are in a training session (they are probably mapping their
> real world experience that training sessions are “visible”). However,
> despite a couple of people telling me there is some template I can use to
> indicate an educational activity is taking place (not clear if it tags the
> user or the article) but I have yet to discover what it is. I have tried
> putting {{inuse}} onto the article but that’s been a failure (doesn’t deter
> these unfriendly folk and it’s often removed as well).
>
>
>
> So, in summary, yes, teach the VE, it’s much easier for new users. But don’t
> think the problems of new users are completely solved with the VE.
>
>
>
> 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] Reinforcing or incentivizing desired user behavior

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello, that's this one:
http://www.raphkoster.com/tag/wikimania/

2015-10-06 20:42 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen :
> Hoi,
> There was a presentation about game theory at WIkimania in London... Quite
> interesting.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On 6 October 2015 at 17:29, Jonathan Morgan  wrote:
>>
>> Hi Pine,
>>
>> The book Building Successful Online Communities: Evidence Based Social
>> Design[1] provides a great synthesis of concepts from economics, sociology,
>> and cognitive psychology as they apply to the design of projects like
>> Wikipedia. In fact, Wikipedia is one of the primary case studies used in the
>> book. They have several chapters that focus on motivation techniques/tools.
>> The book is easy to skim and apply!
>>
>> Hope that helps,
>> Jonathan
>>
>> 1. https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/building-successful-online-communities
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Some of us plan to have a conversation at the WCONUSA unconference
>>> sessions about ENWP culture. Are there any recommended readings that you
>>> could suggest as preparation, particularly on the subject of how to
>>> reinforce or incentivize desirable user behavior? I think that Jonathan may
>>> have done some research on this topic for the Teahouse, and Ocassi may have
>>> for done research for TWA. I'm interested in applicable research as
>>> preparation both for the unconference discussion and for my planned video
>>> series that intends to inform and inspire new editors.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Pine
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>

___
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 quality

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello,

If I consider a qualitative approach, maybe it might be useful to talk to
Wikipedians what exactly are their concerns and what to do in order to
overcome them. A lot of Wikidata information does not really need a
'source', similarly as in Wikipedia itself.

I believe that a lot of resistance against Wikidata in Wikipedia
communities stems from the fact that WP and WD are different wikis.
Wikipedians feel uncomfortable on WD where they are newbies.

Sometimes I also recognize a certain pride of the own Wikipedia language
version and a certain disdain of some other Wikipedia language versions.
For example: "We on great Wikipedia in language A are superb in referencing
and vandalism fighting, while the stupid people of Wikipedia in language B
let all the rubbish go in." And via WD, that "rubbish" enters the superb
Wikipedia in language A - that's the fear.

(In my own theorizing, I am asking myself in which ways wikis can be
connected with each other, in a technical way, in a social way.)

It would be good to have a look at those feelings in order to understand
"community resistance" better. Feelings that are not totally irrational, by
the way.

Kind regards
Ziko





Am Mittwoch, 26. August 2015 schrieb Gerard Meijssen :

> Hoi,
> There is work done on software that compares data from Wikidata and other
> external sources. This is by someone connected to Wikidata. The details are
> not clear to me. It is supposed to become available in 2015.
>
> What I am looking for is a way to learn at what level the quality is. The
> problem we face is that Wikipedians are not convinced by the quality of
> Wikidata because there are no sources. Their observation is correct, there
> is hardly any credible source information but that does not necessarily
> imply that quality is worse than info at other sources or in Wikipedia
> itself. The two things are not really related. My blogpost is an approach
> to quality. What it does do is make it plausible that an approach where
> data is compared with data in linked sources may aid in improving
> quality.It does however not provide an argument that is easy to digest. It
> does not rate quality in percentages, it does not indicate in numbers how
> quality is improving when this approach is taken. They are the kind of
> arguments that may convince Wikipedians that Wikidata is safe to use even
> without the sources they seek.
>
> I am NOT saying that sources on statements are not good to have, What I am
> saying is that it is unlikely for the many millions of statements to have
> credible sources any time soon. Consequently it is best to work on sourcing
> potential problematic statements and have statistics on problematic
> statements due to comparisons with other sources. With numbers like this,
> we encourage people to do the hard work by showing how much of a difference
> they make.
>
> Finding such numbers is exactly what research is about. This is why I put
> this challenge to you as I am not a scientist nor do I have the right
> skills.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 25 August 2015 at 23:11, Ellery Wulczyn  > wrote:
>
>> Hi Gerard,
>>
>> your blog post got me thinking about designing a Wikidata fact checking
>> tool. The idea would be to rank facts to be checked by a human by some
>> combination of a fact importance score and a fact uncertainty score. Do you
>> know of any work that has already been done in this space? Do you think
>> such a tool would be used? What are the current systems for quality control
>> in Wikidata?
>>
>> As an aside, estimating fact uncertainty may reduce to estimating
>> Wikidata quality as a whole.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Ellery
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 11:24 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
>> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Hoi,
>>> There is a lot of knowledge on quality in online databases. It is known
>>> that all of them have a certain error rate. This is true for Wikidata as
>>> much as any other source.
>>>
>>> My question is: is there a way to track Wikidata quality improvements
>>> over time. One approach I blogged about [1]. It is however only an approach
>>> to improve quality not an approach to determine quality and track the
>>> improvement of quality.
>>>
>>> The good news is that there are many dumps of Wikidata so it is possible
>>> to compare current Wikidata with how it was in the past.
>>>
>>> Would this be something that makes sense to get into for Wikimedia
>>> research. particularly in the light of Wikidata becoming more easily
>>> available to Wikipedia?
>>> Thanks,
>>>  GerardM
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2015/08/wikidata-quality-probability-and-set.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.wikimed

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

[Ziko van Dijk]

2015-06-26 20:40 GMT+02:00 Leila Zia :
> Hi everyone,
> the way the algorithm makes the final recommendations is language agnostic

Obviously. :-)


> I'm sorry if the recommendation has disappointed you. As mentioned in the
> recommendation email, you will be in one of the two groups: those who
> receive random but still important (with the algorithm's definition of
> importance) recommendations

If my French was better, I had certainly read also the small letters
in the footnote. :-)

No offense taken, but I had liked to see the choice made with more
care. In general, I don't have much trust in automatics making
evaluations about people and their edit behavior. They should always
be supervised by a human being (who would have seen, with two clicks,
that I'm not suitable to translate to French). I am a little bit
stunned by the fact that you seriously considered everyone with "fr"
in a Babel template as francophone. Everywhere I have indicated "fr-1"
- except on my French user page where I describe my handicap in poor
French. :-)

Already in 2009/2010 I have discussed such issues in my
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Ziko/Handbuch-Allgemeines
There is a phenomenon which I call "foreign helpers". They are
Wikipedians who edit significantly in language versions of which they
don't or hardly understand the language. They remove obvious spam or
embed pictures, or they post (English language) announcements at the
"village pump" (forum). This explains why they have edits in many
language versions, and why some small language versions seem to have
quite a lot of editors.

My recommendations:
* Consider only people who indicate at least -3 in BOTH relevant
languages. Actually, the version people translate to should be the
native language.
* They should have at least have 1000 edits in both language versions,
to make sure they feel comfortable and experienced enough in both.
Preferably rather recent edits.
* How do you filter the topics people might be interested in?

Kind regards
Ziko

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

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

[Ziko van Dijk]

Spamming - a question what the e-mail function of WP is ment for.
I was very surprised to get the request though my French is limited, I
hardly ever edited on fr.WP, and the suggested topics have totally nothing
to do with what I do on Wikipedia. So I do think that the mail was not
quite appropriate, and it gives me a not so favorable impression about the
people or initiative behind.
Kind regards
Ziko




Am Freitag, 26. Juni 2015 schrieb Jim :

> I strongly disagree that this is spamming. Like others have mentioned, I
> was not offended by the email (though I wasn't "delighted") by it either, I
> think it is a reasonable attempt to encourage editors to put some efforts
> into languages other than English.
>
> Plus it is easy to unsubscribe from the research mailing list.
>
> Jim
>
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Emmanuel Engelhart  > wrote:
>
>> On 26.06.2015 01:50, Samuel Klein wrote:
>>
>>> This is such a delightful experience.
>>>
>>
>> I have received this kind of email too. "No",*this is not delightful at
>> all*. This kind of email bores me, like many other Wikipedians (see
>> https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro_du_jour#Wikimedia_Foundation_se_lance_dans_le_spam
>> ).
>>
>> AFAIK I don't have asked to received that kind of email, and the
>> definition of what you do is "spamming" (and please don't answer to this by
>> talking about the "opt-out" option, "opt-in" is the respectful way of
>> doing). Can you please stop this immediately?
>>
>> FYI, the Wikipedia in French has an article evaluation program (like on
>> Wikipedia in English) based on wikiprojects, so honestly I think they
>> already know pretty well where are the weakness without the help of a
>> robot: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projet:%C3%89valuation/Index
>>
>> Emmanuel
>> --
>> Kiwix - Wikipedia Offline & more
>> * Web: http://www.kiwix.org
>> * Twitter: https://twitter.com/KiwixOffline
>> * more: http://www.kiwix.org/wiki/Communication
>>
>> ___
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> 
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Jim (tro...@gmail.com )
> "Our love may not always be reciprocated, or
> even appreciated, but love is never wasted"
> - Neal A Maxwell-
>
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Call for papers: Computational Social Science satellite workshop (CCS'15, Tempe, AZ October 1, 2015)

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello, could anyone explain to me what a "satellite meeting" is? WP does
use the term, but has no article about.
Kind regards
Ziko


Am Montag, 15. Juni 2015 schrieb Giovanni Luca Ciampaglia :

> *** Apologies for multiple postings ***
> ​
>
> ​Call for Participation
>
> Please consider submitting a contribution to the Computational Social
> Science satellite workshop, co-located with CCS’15.
>
> What: Computational Social Science — CCS’15 Satellite Workshop
> Where: Tempe, Arizona
> When: October 1 2015
> Complete info: http://cssworkshop.oii.ox.ac.uk
> Submission deadline: June 21 2015
>
> Continuing an already consolidated pattern since 2013, the Conference in
> Complex Systems (www.ccs2015.org) hosts the satellite workshop on
> Computational Social Science.
>
> The aim of this satellite is to address the question of ICT-mediated
> social phenomena emerging over multiple scales, ranging from the
> interactions of individuals to the emergence of self-organized global
> movements. Particular attention will be devoted to the following topics:
>
> - Interdependent social contagion process
> - Peer production and mass collaboration
> - Temporally evolving networks and dynamics of social contagion
> - Cognitive aspects of belief formation and revision
> - Online communication and information diffusion
> - Viral propagation in online social network
> - Crowd-sourcing; herding behaviour vs. wisdom of crowds
> - E-democracy and online government-citizen interaction
> - Online socio-political mobilizations
> - Public attention and popularity
> - Temporal and geographical patterns of information diffusion
> - User-information interplay
> - Group formation, evolution and group behavior analysis.
> - Modeling, tracking and forecasting dynamic groups in social media.
> - Community detection and dynamic community structure analysis.
> - Social simulation, cultural, opinion, and normative dynamics.
> - Empirical calibration and validation of agent-based social models.
> - Models of social capital, collective action, social movements.
> - Coevolution of network and behavior.
>
> Please address any questions to css2...@indiana.edu
> 
>
> Thank you.
>
> ​Giovanni Luca Ciampaglia on behalf of the
> CSS Workshop Organizing Committee​
>
> ✎ 919 E 10th ∙ Bloomington 47408 IN ∙ USA
> ☞ http://www.glciampaglia.com/
> ✆ +1 812 855-7261
> ✉ gciam...@indiana.edu
> 
>
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

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

[Ziko van Dijk]

The number one problem with Wikipedia seems to be the assessment of
newbies and the communication with them. We often don't have enough
information in order to see whether a contribution was made in good or
bad faith. We usually simply revert.
If the contribution was made in bad faith, that reaction is probably the best.
If the contribution was made in good faith, the reaction should be
different, trying to pull the newbie into the boat.
WMF researchers once examined the "revert ratio" and found out that
many new editor contributions are simply reverted. The communication
with them consists only of prepared, general texts, if at all. The
researchers said: You community must communicate better and write
personal texts, that works better.
But why do the experienced community members don't like to communicate
personally with the newbies? Because they don't a response in 99% of
the cases. Communicating especially with bad faith contributors is a
waste of time. Also, for technical reasons the newbies usually don't
see feedback: they don't know the version history or the talk pages.
One way to solve the problem is to make it more likely that
communication takes place, and make it easier to asses newbies.
Kind regards
Ziko



















2015-06-05 14:46 GMT+02:00 Juergen Fenn :
> Hello Ziko,
>
> Am 05.06.2015 um 09:33 schrieb Ziko van Dijk :
>
>> But I think that this is a good example for a quantitative research
>> that should later lead you to a qualitative look. And maybe it is
>> indeed an indicator for something. In systems theory, one might think
>> that the social system shows an internal differentiation so that
>> people go to more specialized lists.
>
> From the point of view of systems theory what matters is how system Wikimedia 
> draws the line between itself and its environment because that is what 
> constitutes Wikimedia. In other words, how open is Wikimedia still to 
> newbies, different-minded contributors, criticism from within, etc.
>
> What is it that leads to changes in this differentiation between inside and 
> outside the system? Is it due to moderation or to the subscribers leaving, 
> following their interest in certain subjects?
>
> Systems theory deals with an objective description of developments, while  
> the latter would be a matter for those interested in the individual motives 
> for any changes.
>
> Most important: There is no metrics for that, we definitely need a 
> qualitative approach for that.
>
>> Isnt't there literature about the traffic on mailing lists?
>
> Of course, there is. ;) Mailing lists have been there since 1972, IIRC. E.g., 
> a search for "mailing list" in First Monday yields 117 articles. Mailing 
> lists are the oldest type of all virtual communities.
>
> Best,
> Jürgen.
> ___
> 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] Community health (retitled thread)

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello,

As far as it is about me, I can say that I left wikimedia-l twice or
three times. I left mainly because of the high amount of mails, also
often not very useful mails, "witty" remarks in 1-2 lines for example.

But I think that this is a good example for a quantitative research
that should later lead you to a qualitative look. And maybe it is
indeed an indicator for something. In systems theory, one might think
that the social system shows an internal differentiation so that
people go to more specialized lists.

Isnt't there literature about the traffic on mailing lists?

Kind regards,
Ziko







2015-06-05 3:27 GMT+02:00 Stuart A. Yeates :
>
>> Here's a list of possible metrics that we could use for measuring
>> community health.
>
> That's a great list, with some great metrics. I'd be included to add some
> silo-breaking metrics which measure activity across projects or across silos
> within projects:
>
> * Number of editors with actions/edits on more than N wikis (N=2, N=3, etc)
> * Number of editors with actions/edits on more than N namespaces on the same
> wiki (N=2, N=3, etc)
> ...
>
> cheers
> stuart
>
>
> --
> ...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] (no subject)

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello,

With all admiration for the maths, I think that we can learn from these
figures less than we might hope to. In these statistics I often see a
strangly high proportion of traffic from the US or other countries that is
difficult to explain. Why, for example, should there be to many people in
the US who are interested in Frisian Wikipedia?

Even if the numbers and proportions are right: there are too many factors
to consider.

Some years ago I did some research to single Wikipedia language versions,
and it still seems to be the most useful way to combine several methods.
Very important are interviews with the local Wikipedians. It would be great
to have more interviews with readers or potential readers (or
potential non-readers) in order to find out why a Wikipedia language
version does grow, or not.

Kind regards
Ziko


Am Montag, 16. März 2015 schrieb Oliver Keyes :

> Awesome work! It's interesting to see Finnish as the outlier here. Do
> we have any fi-users on the list who can comment on this and might
> know what's going on? (And, in the absence of Finns: Jan, heard
> anything from across the border? :p)
>
> The only caution I'd raise is that these numbers don't include spider
> filtering. Why is this important? Well, a lot of traffic is driven by
> crawlers and spiders and automata, particularly on smaller projects,
> and it can lead to weirdness as a result. With the granular pagecount
> files there's some work that can be done to detect this (for example,
> using burst detection and a few heuristics around concentration
> measures to eliminate pages that are clearly driven by automated
> traffic - see the recent analytics mailing list thread) but only some.
> I appreciate this is a flaw in the data we are releasing, not in your
> work, which is an excellent read and highly interesting :). I agree
> that understanding the lack of development in the PRC and ROK is
> crucial - we keep talking about the "next billion readers" but only
> talking :(
>
> On 16 March 2015 at 02:21, h > wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I have some findings to show the page views per Internet user
> > measurement may help comparing different language editions of Wikipedia.
> > Criticism and suggestions are welcome.
> >
> >
> > -
> >
> http://people.oii.ox.ac.uk/hanteng/2015/03/15/comparing-language-development-in-wikipedia-in-terms-of-page-views-per-internet-users/
> >
> > Which language version of Wikipedia enjoys the most page views per
> language
> > Internet user than expected? It is Finnish. In terms of absolute positive
> > and negative gap, English has the widest positive gap whereas Chinese has
> > the largest negative gap.
> >
> > ..
> >
> > In particular, it is known that Wikipedia (and Google which often favours
> > Wikipedia) faces local competition in the People's Republic of China and
> > South Korea. Therefore it is understandable the page views may be lower
> in
> > Chinese and Korean Wikipedia language projects simply because some users'
> > need to read user-generated encyclopedias are satisfied by other
> websites.
> > However, it remains an important question to examine why these particular
> > Latin and Asian languages are under-developed for Wikipedia projects.
> >
> > ___
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Oliver Keyes
> Research Analyst
> 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] The definition of a wiki

[Ziko van Dijk]

Thank you very much for the link!
Ziko

2015-02-21 15:52 GMT+01:00 Ward Cunningham :
> Try this: http://c2.com/doc/etymology.html
>
> On Feb 21, 2015, at 6:12 AM, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:
>
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>> I am looking for a scientific definition of a wiki, and several works
>> that actually deal a lot about wikis have let me down. Do you know
>> where to look, or is there an authoritative definition anywhere?
>>
>> Kind regards
>> Ziko
>>
>> ___
>> 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] The definition of a wiki

[Ziko van Dijk]

Dear colleagues,

I am looking for a scientific definition of a wiki, and several works
that actually deal a lot about wikis have let me down. Do you know
where to look, or is there an authoritative definition anywhere?

Kind regards
Ziko

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] FW: Research discussion: Visions for Wikipedia

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello,

I find the systemic approach very interesting and would like to become
more familiar with it in time.

My impression is that the key to understand the problems of Wikipedia
is looking at communications, and that is why I am grateful for the
work we have seen by David and others in the Wikipedia Research
Showcase.

Giving appropriate feedback and expressing oneself without being rude
seems to be very difficult to many Wikipedians. I think that that is
the main barrier for participation, and could only be met with a broad
social skills training. Difficult to implement, though. :-(

Kind regards
Ziko




2014-10-28 23:40 GMT+01:00 Stuart A. Yeates :
> I believe that the problem is you're hitting 'reply to all' to a
> message cross-posted to several different mailing lists, one or more
> of which you're not subscribed to.
>
> The bounce message specifically mentioned
> ee-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org, are you subscribed to
> e...@lists.wikimedia.org? If not, there's you problem.
>
> cheers
> stuart
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Kerry Raymond  
> wrote:
>> Why do my emails to this list keep being randomly rejected? Is it a hint of
>> some kind?
>>
>> Kerry
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: ee-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:ee-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org]
>> On Behalf Of ee-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Sent: Tuesday, 28 October 2014 10:08 AM
>> To: kerry.raym...@gmail.com
>> Subject: RE: [Wiki-research-l] Research discussion: Visions for Wikipedia
>>
>> You are not allowed to post to this mailing list, and your message has
>> been automatically rejected.  If you think that your messages are
>> being rejected in error, contact the mailing list owner at
>> ee-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Tool to find poorly written articles

[Ziko van Dijk]

Okay. What do you think of the wikibu tool from Switzerland? It
believes that the number of editors and readers etc are indicators for
the quality, or at least a basis to discuss.
Kind regards
Ziko

http://www.wikibu.ch/search.php?search=Frankfurter+Nationalversammlung

2014-10-25 14:44 GMT+02:00 Ditty Mathew :
> Hi Ziko,
>
> You are right. But if the content of the article is very less or having less
> references, less edits, less no of images, less no of links etc, articles
> are of poor quality. Based on these factors, to some extent we can find the
> quality of article.
>
> with regards
>
> Ditty
>
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:
>>
>> Hello Ditty,
>>
>> It is difficult for me to understand your question if you are not more
>> specific of what you consider a "poorly written article". "Poorly" can
>> refer her to many different things, like readability, grammar,
>> balance, statements supported by 'sources', good division of knowledge
>> over several articles etc.
>>
>> I think that software tools can only give a hint, but the judgement
>> (how "good" is an article) can be done only by a human, on the basis
>> of concrete criteria what is meant to be "good", and for what target
>> group. I tend to say that some Wikipedia articles are "good" for
>> experts but at the same time unsuitable for the general public.
>>
>> E.g., a software tool can count the words per sentence, but long
>> sentences are not necessarily good or bad by themselves.
>>
>> Etc. :-)
>>
>> Kind regards
>> Ziko
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2014-10-25 1:47 GMT+02:00 Joe Corneli :
>> >
>> > On Sat, Oct 25 2014, WereSpielChequers wrote:
>> >
>> >> And just to add to the complexity of James' comments; there are some
>> >> people
>> >> who think that a general interest encyclopaedia should be written for a
>> >> general audience. So articles with long sentences should be improved by
>> >> rewriting into more but shorter sentences,
>> >
>> > How about an even simpler version of the problem: an encyclopedia
>> > written by robots for robots.  I speak, of course, of DBPedia.  We could
>> > equally ask, what makes for quality entries there?
>> >
>> > ___
>> > 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] Tool to find poorly written articles

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello Ditty,

It is difficult for me to understand your question if you are not more
specific of what you consider a "poorly written article". "Poorly" can
refer her to many different things, like readability, grammar,
balance, statements supported by 'sources', good division of knowledge
over several articles etc.

I think that software tools can only give a hint, but the judgement
(how "good" is an article) can be done only by a human, on the basis
of concrete criteria what is meant to be "good", and for what target
group. I tend to say that some Wikipedia articles are "good" for
experts but at the same time unsuitable for the general public.

E.g., a software tool can count the words per sentence, but long
sentences are not necessarily good or bad by themselves.

Etc. :-)

Kind regards
Ziko







2014-10-25 1:47 GMT+02:00 Joe Corneli :
>
> On Sat, Oct 25 2014, WereSpielChequers wrote:
>
>> And just to add to the complexity of James' comments; there are some people
>> who think that a general interest encyclopaedia should be written for a
>> general audience. So articles with long sentences should be improved by
>> rewriting into more but shorter sentences,
>
> How about an even simpler version of the problem: an encyclopedia
> written by robots for robots.  I speak, of course, of DBPedia.  We could
> equally ask, what makes for quality entries there?
>
> ___
> 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] Tool to find poorly written articles

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello,
What do you exactly mean by poorly written? Dnaber presented on Wikimania a
LanguageTool to detect wordings that might be incorrect.
Kind regards
Ziko

Am Freitag, 24. Oktober 2014 schrieb Aaron Halfaker :

> Hi Ditty!
>
> Since Aileen is on vacation (lol), I've got some references for you.
>
>- Cosley, D., Frankowski, D., Terveen, L., & Riedl, J. (2007,
>January). SuggestBot: using intelligent task routing to help people find
>work in wikipedia. In *Proceedings of the 12th international
>conference on Intelligent user interfaces* (pp. 32-41). ACM.
>
> http://pensivepuffin.com/dwmcphd/syllabi/info447_wi14/readings/09-Systems/Cosley.SuggestBot.IUI07.pdf
>- Warncke-Wang, M., Cosley, D., & Riedl, J. (2013, August). Tell me
>more: an actionable quality model for Wikipedia. In *Proceedings of
>the 9th International Symposium on Open Collaboration* (p. 8). ACM.
>http://opensym.org/wsos2013/proceedings/p0202-warncke.pdf
>
> If you are interested in the article quality predictions that are used in
> SuggestBot, check out https://pythonhosted.org/wikiclass/ Right now, we
> only have models built for English Wikipedia, but the features are
> relatively agnostic and should work in other languages.
>
> -Aaron
>
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Aileen Oeberst  > wrote:
>
>> I am currently on vacation and will not be able to answer your mail before
>> November 10. But I will get back then as soon as possible.
>>
>> Best regards, Aileen Oeberst
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Quality on different language version

[Ziko van Dijk]

Indeed, Juliana, one example: for the complex process with regard to a
German emperor in 1848/1849, it would have been possible to write one
or several articles on e.g. the debates in the National Assembly. But
what did de.wp? Elected with [[Kaiserdeputation]], the Assembly's
delegation to the Prussian King, the most visible element of the
process.

I now see that https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsgr%C3%BCndung is a
similar example, also an article suffering from the
Frühmittelalter-problem and other issues. "Foundation of the Empire".

* With the picture of von Werner about the proclamation on January 18,
it highlights the most visible element.

* "Staatsgründung": Very basically about the (more important) legal
proceedings of the parliament

* A huge part about the proclamation

* "Sichtweise der süddeutschen Staaten": good part, but not much
connected to the others

* "Folgen und Bewertung": a mix of what followed and a judgement. With
good elements, partially two long, some inaccuracies or improper
wordings

* Following a paragraph on the Franco-German relations (not quite
suitable here, or in larger European context of the event in question,
the foundation of the Empire). Following a list and map of the single
German states, which we already have elsewhere

* A list with literature, partially not directly related to the topic or dated

* Surprisingly many footnotes, with a certain diversity of sometimes
very general works.

Haber is this person: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Haber_%28Historiker%29

In English short: http://www.hist.net/index.php?id=39&L=1

http://wiki.histnet.ch/index.php/Werkstattgespr%C3%A4ch_Wien_2010

E.g.: 
http://derstandard.at/1277337531926/Wer-viel-Zeit-hat-hat-bei-Wikipedia-das-Sagen

I can't find anything more specific at the moment.

Kind regards
Ziko

2014-06-10 17:07 GMT+02:00 Juliana Bastos Marques :
> Ziko, could you please supply the full reference to Haber's article? Indeed,
> what I observe in History-related articles is almost a tendency towards
> positivism, histoire événementielle - hence, for instance, the vast number
> of battle themes. Discussion of historiographic approaches to concepts is
> usually quite rare and badly written.
>
> Anyone willing to conduct comparative research on quality of History-related
> articles, please drop me a note!
>
> Juliana.
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:
>>
>> Dear Anders,
>>
>> Thank you for bringing this up. My experience is that there is still a
>> huge gap between computer-based quantity-oriented studies and
>> human-based selective sample quality-oriented studies.
>>
>> I published in 2009 a paper on "small" or "weak" articles but I am
>> afraid that it was too much a numbers' game. It contained a table that
>> differentiated between large, middle-sized, small and mini Wikipedias,
>> with some assumptions on the quality and the power to cover topics.
>>
>> Last year I started with a paper but the publishers seemed not to
>> finish their project. I compared the notability criteria of en, de,
>> nl, af (Afrikaans) and fo (Frisian) and found out that they are
>> actually very comparable, as far as they can be compared at all. The
>> often assumed "severity" of de.wp on notability seems to be a myth,
>> maybe based on anti German cliche.
>>
>> Now I have made for my lectures a table of small and larger
>> encyclopedic articles in order to compare a topic in different
>> reference works. Reason for this is also my contribution to the
>> Historians' Convention (Historikertag) later this year. My basic
>> question is whether Wikipedia is a good starting point for a historic
>> topic, following the research of early deceased Swiss historian Peter
>> Haber.
>>
>> Haber made his point i.a. at the example of [[de:Frühmittelalter]]
>> (early middle ages) in 2010. That article, he complained, contained no
>> real inaccuracies, but still it was useless for a student. No good
>> structure, some facts put one after the other etc. His explanation: if
>> you want to write an article about a person, say about Henri Dunant,
>> you take some biographies and write from his birth to his death and
>> legacy. That's relatively easy and can be done by any good writer. But
>> for a comprehensive article on the early middle ages, you must be a
>> skilled historian very familiar with the period.
>>
>> (I now experience the same with a series of Wikipedia articles I write
>> about a certain period in German history. Just following the (older)
>> standard reference works would simply not make me happy, not be a
>> really valuable co

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

[Ziko van Dijk]

Dear Anders,

Thank you for bringing this up. My experience is that there is still a
huge gap between computer-based quantity-oriented studies and
human-based selective sample quality-oriented studies.

I published in 2009 a paper on "small" or "weak" articles but I am
afraid that it was too much a numbers' game. It contained a table that
differentiated between large, middle-sized, small and mini Wikipedias,
with some assumptions on the quality and the power to cover topics.

Last year I started with a paper but the publishers seemed not to
finish their project. I compared the notability criteria of en, de,
nl, af (Afrikaans) and fo (Frisian) and found out that they are
actually very comparable, as far as they can be compared at all. The
often assumed "severity" of de.wp on notability seems to be a myth,
maybe based on anti German cliche.

Now I have made for my lectures a table of small and larger
encyclopedic articles in order to compare a topic in different
reference works. Reason for this is also my contribution to the
Historians' Convention (Historikertag) later this year. My basic
question is whether Wikipedia is a good starting point for a historic
topic, following the research of early deceased Swiss historian Peter
Haber.

Haber made his point i.a. at the example of [[de:Frühmittelalter]]
(early middle ages) in 2010. That article, he complained, contained no
real inaccuracies, but still it was useless for a student. No good
structure, some facts put one after the other etc. His explanation: if
you want to write an article about a person, say about Henri Dunant,
you take some biographies and write from his birth to his death and
legacy. That's relatively easy and can be done by any good writer. But
for a comprehensive article on the early middle ages, you must be a
skilled historian very familiar with the period.

(I now experience the same with a series of Wikipedia articles I write
about a certain period in German history. Just following the (older)
standard reference works would simply not make me happy, not be a
really valuable contribution to Wikipedia. With (nearly) every new
work I get from the inter library loan I see that it is good to wait
with publication of an article until I have together the set of works
I deem necessary. - I consider to write a kind of report about this
series.)

It would be great to have a set of criteria for an article typology,
based partially on function of the article (overview, or registration
of an item in a row etc.) and the inner quality (structure,
comprehensiveness, based on literature etc.).

Kind regards
Ziko




























2014-06-10 14:34 GMT+02:00 Anders Wennersten :
> My starting point have been the newly created articles on svwp. They will
> represent the usual bunch of football playser, tv-stars, computergames,
> films  etc where svwp are behind most versions but where enwp is excellent.
> The interesting comparisons comes from the next levels of articles that can
> be almost anything, a footballstadium in Kazan Russia, an albanian poet, a
> church in Venize, a specie with unclear taxonomy, the american solider who
> perhaps deserted etc. In these cases I only often find a corresponding
> article in enwp, but also very often (around 20%) I find it in another
> version and no presence in enwp.
>
> And when enwp is not giving me support, I most often find support in eswp
> and frwp, sometimes in dewp, but almost never in ptwp. For exemple
> taxanomical threes  with name in native and latin is about the weakest in
> ptwp. But I can be wrong and I would love to be part in a more complete
> research on Q comparisons for the different versions
>
>
> Anders
>
>
>
>
>
> Juliana Bastos Marques skrev 2014-06-10 14:06:
>
> This topic comes in handy for my research on Featured Articles in WP:PT.
> Maybe some of you may remember my request a little while ago about studies
> on Wikipedias other than English. Well, not that I believe that the Featured
> Article requirements are a good evaluation per se, in terms of quality of
> content.
>
> Anders, what are the articles you evaluated? I'm curious to find out what
> was so bad in the Portuguese Wikipedia. Indeed, there are many problems
> there, but I'm surprised to hear that it looks so bad. I know it's a drop in
> the ocean, but I've been fixing some new articles that are translations from
> bad English ones - which look good, but analyzing the content reveals many
> problems.
>
> Juliana.
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Anders Wennersten
>  wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for answer
>>
>> Your answer confirm my "fear", that focus is almost completly to en:wp and
>> how it is compared with an ideal perfect Q
>>
>> My interest and what I believe the movement need before we dig into next
>> round of strategy round is
>> *what versions are dysfunctional. These represent a risk for the movement
>> as they can jeoprdaize the brand name, as they are not living up to basic Q
>> (and NPOV)
>> *what can we learn 

Re: [Wiki-research-l] How fast is Wikipedia?

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello,

Maybe those who died recently have fairly up to date articles because
of the recent attention.

I once looked at the article of a German politician who is already out
of office for some years, but who had left party. I compared articles
in different language versions whether they were updated on that or
not.

Maybe a suggestion?

Kind regards
Ziko



2014-04-23 11:00 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen :
> Hoi,
> You may also want to consider people who died in 2014 and if there is an
> article for him or her in a Wikipedia.. This query shows everybody known to
> have died in 2014 in Wikidata [1]. It is not complete yet, around 500 more
> people need to be added to Wikidata. The number of known deaths is at least
> double the number of known deaths in en,wp.
>
> NB there are Americans, Aussies, Britons in this list unknown on the en,wp.
> Thanks,
>  GerardN
>
> [1]
> http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/autolist.html?q=claim[31%3A5]%20and%20between[570%2C2014.]
>
>
> On 23 April 2014 10:24, stuart yeates  wrote:
>>
>> On 23/04/14 19:55, Johannes Hoffart wrote:
>>
>>> Is there some work trying to answer this question of how long it takes
>>> for Wikipedia articles to be created after an event became newsworthy (and
>>> eventually ends up in Wikipedia)?
>>
>>
>> One way of doing this would be to look at the biographies of the
>> recently-deceased. Check for articles in
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:2013_deaths created after the death
>> of the subject and calculate the time difference.
>>
>> cheers
>> stuart
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Looking for example of experts contribution fails

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello, Wozniak scratches the subject here:

Zehn Jahre Berührungsängste: Die Geschichtswissenschaften und die
Wikipedia. Eine Be-standsaufnahme, in: Zeitschrift für
Geschichtswissenschaften 60/3 (2012), S. 247-264.

Thomas Wozniak


Kind regards
Ziko

2014-03-28 20:17 GMT+01:00 Pierre Willaime :
> Hi,
>
> I'm looking for data to conduit a academic inquiry.
>
> More precisely, I would like to study examples of scientists who tried to
> contribute to Wikipedia but quit and have spoken about it.
>
> Are you aware of such feedbacks? I'm also interested by the Wikipedia
> community reactions.
>
> Thanks
> --
> Pierre Willaime
> http://p.willaime.free.fr/
>
> ___
> 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] uploads of municipalities (rambot)

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello Iolanda,

About the bot articles I wrote some years ago in my German handbook of
the International Wikipedia.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Ziko/Handbuch-Allgemeines

See also my contribution to Language Problems and Language Planning in 2009.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/jbp/lplp/2009/0033/0003/art3

On the WikiCon in Karlsruhe, 2013, we talked about the bot articles
because of the recent mass creation on nl.WP. Initiator of the
discussion was Benutzer:Holder.

Kind regards
Ziko


2014-03-17 16:56 GMT+01:00 Dario Taraborelli :
> this is a fascinating thread, thanks for starting it, Iolanda.
>
> For his PhD dissertation, Alan McConchie studied the impact of automated or 
> bulk-imported geodata on the growth and activity of the OSM editor community. 
> I am copying him as he might have some insights to share.
>
> I also wanted to make a bold proposal to the list. We've been discussing for 
> a while this notion of "topic pages", i.e. reviews on the state of the art of 
> research on topic areas of key interest to the Wikimedia community:
>
> * these pages would be hosted on Meta, they would be maintained and curated 
> by researchers and community members and would include pointers to the 
> relevant literature
> * they could be used as the main resource for newbie wiki researchers and 
> volunteers interested in Wikipedia research but also as compact digests for 
> existing researchers about areas they haven't explored
> * what's more, they could be forked at any point in time and turned into 
> conference/journal submission as review articles with major contributors as 
> authors
> * finally, they could include a section with unanswered research questions 
> that could seed further research.
>
> Would people in this thread be interested in a pilot for a topic page on 
> automatic article creation in Wikimedia sites?
>
> Dario
>
> On Mar 17, 2014, at 3:49 AM, Iolanda Pensa  wrote:
>
>> thanks for the very valuable information.
>> there is a History of Wikipedia bots [1]; I added your hints in the session 
>> ""rambot" and other small-town bots". please do not hesitate to remove, 
>> improve, correct.
>>
>> yes, I am personally interested in geographic information (and its 
>> balance/unbalance) and my interest in Rambot is related to the legend (or 
>> the fact) that the upload of municipalities has triggered editing and 
>> similar bots and experiences on Wikipedia not only in English. WikiData is 
>> definitely a game changer but I share the fascination for ancient history 
>> and I think it might have some lessons to teach us.
>> thanks! iolanda/iopensa
>>
>> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:History_of_Wikipedia_bots
>>
>> Il giorno 17/mar/2014, alle ore 10:44, Edward Summers  ha 
>> scritto:
>>
>>> On Mar 16, 2014, at 2:14 PM, R.Stuart Geiger  wrote:
 There are lots of papers about bots which throw out the example of Rambot 
 for a few sentences without dwelling on the case too much -- I'm certainly 
 guilty of this, so I won't vanity cite them. However, Niederer and van 
 Dijck [1] spend a good amount of time discussing the Rambot case in detail 
 in their great NMS article. Andrew Lih's The Wikipedia Revolution [2] also 
 goes pretty in-depth into the history of Rambot, talking about came to be 
 and what it did, along with some controversies it created.
>>>
>>> Thanks for sharing this Stuart. I for one would love to read a bibliography 
>>> of research about Wikipedia bots and automation :-)
>>>
>>> //Ed
>>> ___
>>> 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] identifying Wikipedia article topics

[Ziko van Dijk]

Okay, thanks Amir.

Doesn't it have to do mainly with the structure of the article? A
biography article has a very chronological outline. Math... I think it
is like "here there problem, there the solution"? City ... well, there
are some common patterns. Historical events often: "Naming",
"Prehistory", "Event", "Aftermath", "Reception" ("what people say" or
"What historiographers say")...

They say that biography articles are very suitable for beginners or
non historians, because the structure is relatively simple (as Goethe
said: "He lived, had a wife, and died."). Possibly they are also
easier to translate...

So far some thoughts. :-)
Ziko




2014-03-18 14:39 GMT+01:00 Amir E. Aharoni :
> It's not so much "topics", as I wrote in the email subject, but more like
> "types", as I wrote in the email body. Sorry about the confusion.
>
> We are getting serious about analyzing how do people translate articles.
> Basically, all articles are worth translating, but we may find, for example,
> that Wikipedia has 60% biographies, 30% articles about places and 10%
> articles about math, but of the translated articles, 80% are about places,
> and biographies and and math are 10% each. So if this will be the case, we
> may want to understand why don't people translate articles about biographies
> and math more - are they simply less interesting? is it harder for some
> social reason? for some technical reason? If there is something that we can
> do to make translation easier, we may want to do it.
>
> This example is, of course, highly simplified and the numbers are completely
> made up, but I hope that it explains the intention.
>
> Now when I say "biographies", "articles about places" and "articles about
> math", it's immediately clear and intuitive to a person what I'm talking
> about. I am asking whether there is a known easy way for software to
> understand such things.
>
>
> --
> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
> http://aharoni.wordpress.com
> ‪“We're living in pieces,
> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
>
>
> 2014-03-18 14:34 GMT+02:00 Ziko van Dijk :
>>
>> Hello Amir,
>> The question rising would be for me: what do you use the
>> classification for? Depending on that you can get a lot different
>> answers. The biography of Otto von Bismarck may be in the category
>> "history", the biography of Justin Bieber in "entertainment".
>> Kind regards
>> Ziko
>>
>> 2014-03-18 8:31 GMT+01:00 Maik Anderka :
>> > Dear Amir,
>> >
>> > two years ago, we have utilized Wikipedia categories to analyze the
>> > distribution of articles over a set of main topics. We used the 24
>> > direct
>> > subcategories of "Category:Main topic classifications" as main topics.
>> > For
>> > further information, see Section 4.2 in this paper:
>> >
>> > http://www.uni-weimar.de/medien/webis/publications/papers/stein_2012d.pdf
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> > Maik
>> >
>> > --
>> > Maik Anderka
>> > Research Group "Knowledge-Based Systems"
>> > Department of Computer Science
>> > University of Paderborn, Germany
>> > http://www.uni-paderborn.de/cs/ag-klbue
>> >
>> >
>> > Am 17.03.2014 16:21, schrieb Amir E. Aharoni:
>> >
>> > Hallo,
>> >
>> > Is there any known easy way to classify Wikipedia articles into a
>> > relatively
>> > small number of types?
>> >
>> > By "relatively small" I mean no more than twenty, and by "types" I mean
>> > things that are intuitively clear to readers, for example:
>> > * Biographies
>> > * Articles about scientific phenomena (can be sub-grouped to math,
>> > astronomy, physics, geology, medicine)
>> > * Articles about works of art (paintings, movies, books, records,
>> > statues)
>> > * Articles about places
>> > * Articles about historical events
>> > * Articles about biological species
>> > * Articles that mostly present data, such as demography or results of
>> > competitions (sports, elections, game shows)
>> >
>> > There are a few more, but not much. I hope that you get the idea.
>> >
>> > We have categories, but I'm not sure that it's easy to use categories
>> > for
>> > such things because of the very loose category structure. For example,
>> > [[Eurovisio

Re: [Wiki-research-l] identifying Wikipedia article topics

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello Amir,
The question rising would be for me: what do you use the
classification for? Depending on that you can get a lot different
answers. The biography of Otto von Bismarck may be in the category
"history", the biography of Justin Bieber in "entertainment".
Kind regards
Ziko

2014-03-18 8:31 GMT+01:00 Maik Anderka :
> Dear Amir,
>
> two years ago, we have utilized Wikipedia categories to analyze the
> distribution of articles over a set of main topics. We used the 24 direct
> subcategories of "Category:Main topic classifications" as main topics. For
> further information, see Section 4.2 in this paper:
> http://www.uni-weimar.de/medien/webis/publications/papers/stein_2012d.pdf
>
> Best regards,
> Maik
>
> --
> Maik Anderka
> Research Group "Knowledge-Based Systems"
> Department of Computer Science
> University of Paderborn, Germany
> http://www.uni-paderborn.de/cs/ag-klbue
>
>
> Am 17.03.2014 16:21, schrieb Amir E. Aharoni:
>
> Hallo,
>
> Is there any known easy way to classify Wikipedia articles into a relatively
> small number of types?
>
> By "relatively small" I mean no more than twenty, and by "types" I mean
> things that are intuitively clear to readers, for example:
> * Biographies
> * Articles about scientific phenomena (can be sub-grouped to math,
> astronomy, physics, geology, medicine)
> * Articles about works of art (paintings, movies, books, records, statues)
> * Articles about places
> * Articles about historical events
> * Articles about biological species
> * Articles that mostly present data, such as demography or results of
> competitions (sports, elections, game shows)
>
> There are a few more, but not much. I hope that you get the idea.
>
> We have categories, but I'm not sure that it's easy to use categories for
> such things because of the very loose category structure. For example,
> [[Eurovision 2007]] is somewhere under [[Category:Humans]], even though it's
> not an article about a human.
>
> Such information can be useful for study about the types of articles that
> different people write. In particular, I thought about it in the context of
> analyzing the types of articles that people are translating now (manually)
> and will translate in the future using the ContentTranslation, which is in
> its early stages of development.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
> http://aharoni.wordpress.com
> ‪“We're living in pieces,
> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
>
>
> ___
> 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] Estimate of vandal population

[Ziko van Dijk]

So Piotr, if I understand you well it is about the question how many of the
people who are our "contributors" according to the statistics (per 5 edits
a month, or 100 edits a month) are actually vandals? I could imagine that
some vandals manage to make 5 edits before being blocked, or lose interest
before they are blocked, and appear in the statistics.
Kind regards
Ziko


2013/9/29 Piotr Konieczny 

>  I know of the categories, but the problem is that they do not seem to be
> comprehensive. I can estimate, based on them, that there are at least 150k
> or so editors who were banned for vandalism, but it seems many vandals do
> not make it into those categories, suggesting this number is underestimated.
>
> Still, we should be able to get some estimates. We know, for example,
> that  something like 5 or 6 million of accounts have made 1+ edit on
> English Wikipedia. How many of them were indefinitely blocked? This should
> give us some idea.
>
> Alternatively, we know how many accounts make an edit to Wikipedia every
> given timeframe. About 100,000-120,000 editors make at least one edit to
> Wikipedia each month. If we knew how many are indef blocked in that period,
> that would be another useful estimate.
>
>
> --
> Piotr Konieczny, 
> PhDhttp://hanyang.academia.edu/PiotrKoniecznyhttp://scholar.google.com/citations?user=gdV8_AEJhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Piotrus
>
>
>
> On 9/30/2013 11:44 AM, Stuart Yeates wrote:
>
> I guess it depends on whether Piotr is looking for an estimate of accounts
> used for vandalism or an estimate of the people who operate them. One seems
> straight forward, the other more challenging. Perhaps combining the
> categories below with sock puppet investigations and some fancy stats?
>
>  Cheers
> Stuart
>
> On 29/09/2013, at 12:13 am, h  wrote:
>
>   Hello Piotr,
>I believe that in Chinese Wikipedia, "blocked indefinitely" is a user
> category called Wikipedians that are blocked indefinitely "被永久封禁的維基人"
> http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:%E8%A2%AB%E6%B0%B8%E4%B9%85%E5%B0%81%E7%A6%81%E7%9A%84%E7%B6%AD%E5%9F%BA%E4%BA%BA
>Its equivalent Wikidata table has the following pages in other language
> versions:
> http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q4616402#sitelinks-wikipedia
>  Language Code Linked article
>English enwiki Category:Blocked historical 
> users
>   italiano itwiki Categoria:Wikipedia:Cloni 
> sospetti
>   latviešu lvwiki Kategorija:Uz nenoteiktu laiku nobloķētie 
> lietotāji
>   slovenčina skwiki Kategória:Wikipédia:Natrvalo zablokovaní 
> používatelia
>   česky cswiki Kategorie:Wikipedie:Natrvalo zablokovaní 
> uživatelé
>   български bgwiki Категория:Блокирани неприемливи потребителски 
> имена
>   олык марий mhrwiki Категорий:Википедий:Йӧн 
> петырыме
>   українська ukwiki Категорія:Безстроково заблоковані 
> користувачі
>   中文 zhwiki 
> Category:被永久封禁的維基人
>   日本語 jawiki Category:無期限ブロックを受けたユー 
> ザー
>
>
>
> I hope that it helps.
> Best,
> han-teng liao
>
>
>
> 2013/9/29 Piotr Konieczny 
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Another question: do we have an estimate of a vandal population?
>>
>> I also asked this at
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#How_many_editors_are_blocked_indefinitely.3Fbut
>>  so far no good estimates have been provided.
>>
>> --
>> Piotr Konieczny, PhD
>> http://hanyang.academia.edu/PiotrKonieczny
>> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=gdV8_AEJ
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Readable characters vs. size in bytes of articles

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello,

Thanks for pointing this out - Wikidata and other evolutions might change
something, yes. But still... For example, sometimes WP in  Upper Sorabian
(hsb.WP) copies whole lists of literature from German Wikipedia, or the
secction weblinks etc. That's all "encyclopedic content" then in hsb.WP,
but it does not reflect work in the hsb language, and it adds no extra
value for the hsb readers. Those books and weblinks, of course, are in
German.
Nothing to do about - an impression about the size and quality of a
language must consider quantitative and qualitative aspects (from autopsy,
looking-with-your-own eyes). But on that we all agree anyway. :-)
Ziko


Am Dienstag, 6. August 2013 schrieb WereSpielChequers :

> Hi Ziko,
>
> You'll find that articles like that changed radically at the beginning of
> this year. At that point we moved from a system where all 200  or more
> articles on Berlin contained  200 or more intrawiki links to the other 200
> articles  on Berlin, to one where the Intrawiki links are all on Wikidata.
> That had a very dramatic effect on very stubby articles the Aceh article
> on Berlin 
> dropped<http://ak.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Berlin&diff=15464&oldid=15203>by
>   3716 bytes to just 110, and many minor and poorly served languages
> would be likely to have very short articles on Berlin, dozens still don't
> have one at all.
>
> I doubt if this accounts for the differences that Fabian and Aaron are
> experiencing as I've been assuming that they are both looking at current
> data and I think Fabian mentioned EN.
>
>
> The change in the way we hold interwiki links also had a radical effect on
> bot editing numbers as it used to be that each time another language
> version of the Berlin article was created over 200  other languages version
> would have a bot edit adding that intrawiki link. I'm assuming that someone
> sometime is going to pick up on this and report it as a radical slump  in
> editing of Wikipedia's minor languages. But in reality it is just as much a
> cosmetic and misleading side effect of a change in the way we automate
> things as measuring the raw edit counts on EN wikipedia since the edit
> filters were introduced in 2009 and assuming that because we now stop most
> vandalism from reaching the wiki we have a fall in edit numbers.
>
> Jonathan
>
> On 6 August 2013 01:12, Ziko van Dijk  'cvml', 'zvand...@gmail.com');>
> > wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>> When in 2008 I made some observations on language versions, it struck me
>> that in some cases the wikisyntax and the "meta article information" was
>> more KB than the whole encyclopedic content of an article. For example,
>> the wikicode of the article "Berlin" in Upper Sorabian consisted of more
>> than 50 % characters for categories, interwiki links etc. This made me
>> largely disregarding the cooncerning features of the Wikimedia statistics.
>> Kind regards
>> Ziko
>>
>>
>> Am Dienstag, 6. August 2013 schrieb Aaron Halfaker :
>>
>>  I am removing all HTML tags and comments to include only those
>> characters that are shown on the screen.  This will include the content of
>> tables without including the markup contained within.  In other words, I
>> stripped anything out of the HTML that looked like a tag (e.g. "" and
>> "") or a comment ("") but kept the in-between
>> characters, whitespace and all.
>>
>> It seems much more reasonable to me that the difference is due to the
>> fact that Fabian's dataset is limited to a very narrow range of bytes.  To
>> check this hypothesis, I drew a new sample of pages with byte length
>> between 5800 and 6000.
>>
>> The pearson correlation that I found for that sample is* 0.06466406.  *This
>> corresponds nicely to the poor correlation that Fabian found.
>> *
>> *
>> I've update the plot[1] to show the difference visually.
>>
>> -Aaron
>>
>> 1.
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bytes.content_length.scatter.correlation.enwiki.png
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 6:04 AM, WereSpielChequers <
>> werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks both of you,
>>
>> I suspect that you two are using very different rules to define "readable
>> characters", and for Aaron to get a close correlation and Fabian not to get
>> any correlation implies to me that Fabian is stripping out the things that
>> are not linked to article size, and that Aaron may be leaving such things
>> in.
>>
>> For reasons that I'm going to pretend I don

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Readable characters vs. size in bytes of articles

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello,
When in 2008 I made some observations on language versions, it struck me
that in some cases the wikisyntax and the "meta article information" was
more KB than the whole encyclopedic content of an article. For example, the
wikicode of the article "Berlin" in Upper Sorabian consisted of more than
50 % characters for categories, interwiki links etc. This made me largely
disregarding the cooncerning features of the Wikimedia statistics.
Kind regards
Ziko


Am Dienstag, 6. August 2013 schrieb Aaron Halfaker :

> I am removing all HTML tags and comments to include only those characters
> that are shown on the screen.  This will include the content of tables
> without including the markup contained within.  In other words, I stripped
> anything out of the HTML that looked like a tag (e.g. "" and "")
> or a comment ("") but kept the in-between characters,
> whitespace and all.
>
> It seems much more reasonable to me that the difference is due to the fact
> that Fabian's dataset is limited to a very narrow range of bytes.  To check
> this hypothesis, I drew a new sample of pages with byte length between 5800
> and 6000.
>
> The pearson correlation that I found for that sample is* 0.06466406.  *This
> corresponds nicely to the poor correlation that Fabian found.
> *
> *
> I've update the plot[1] to show the difference visually.
>
> -Aaron
>
> 1.
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bytes.content_length.scatter.correlation.enwiki.png
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 6:04 AM, WereSpielChequers <
> werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks both of you,
>
> I suspect that you two are using very different rules to define "readable
> characters", and for Aaron to get a close correlation and Fabian not to get
> any correlation implies to me that Fabian is stripping out the things that
> are not linked to article size, and that Aaron may be leaving such things
> in.
>
> For reasons that I'm going to pretend I don't understand, we have some
> articles with a lot of redundant spaces. Others with so few you'd be
> correct in thinking that certain editors have been making semiautomated
> edits to strip out those spaces. I suspect that Fabian's formulae ignores
> redundant spaces, and that Aaron's does not.
>
> I picked on alt text because it is very patchy across the pedia, but
> usually consistent at article level. I.e if someone has written a whole
> paragraph of alt text for one picture they have probably done so for every
> picture in an article, and conversely many articles will have no alt text
> at all.
>
> Similarly we have headings, and counterintuitively it is the subheadings
> that add most non display characters. So an article like Peasant's revolt
> will have 32 equals signs for its 8 headings, but 60 equal signs for its 10
> subheadings. 92 bytes which I suspect one or both of you will have stripped
> out. The actual display text of course omits all 92 of those bytes, but
> repeats the content of those headings and subheadings in the contents
> section.
>
> The size of sections varies enormously  from one article to another, and
> if there are three or fewer sections the contents section is not generated
> at all. I suspect that the average length of section headings also has
> quite a bit of variance as it is a stylistic choice. So I would expect that
> a "display bytes" count that simply stripped out the multiple equal signs
> would still be a pretty good correlation with article size, but a display
> bytes count that factored in the complication that headings and subheadings
> are displayed twice as they are repeated in the contents field, would have
> another factor drifting it away from a good correlation with raw byte count.
>
> But probably the biggest variance will be over infoboxes, tables, picture
> captions, hidden comments and the like. If you strip all of them out,
> including perhaps even the headings, captions and table contents, then you
> are going to get a very poor fit between article length and readable byte
> size. But I would be surprised if you could get Fabian's minimum display
> size of 95 bytes from 6,000 byte articles without having at least one
> article that consisted almost entirely of tables and which had been reduced
> to a sentence or two of narrative. So my suspicion is that Aaron's plot is
> at least including the displayed contents of tables et al whilst Fabian is
> only measuring the prose sections and completely stripping out anything in
> a table.
>
> Both approaches of course have their merits, and there are even some
> editors who were recent edit warring to keep articles they cared about free
> from clutter by infoboxes and tables.
>
> Regards
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> On 5 August 2013 21:16, Floeck, Fabian (AIFB) wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> thanks for your feedback Jonathan and Aaron.
>
> @Jonathan: You are rightfully pointing at some things that could have been
> done differently, as this was just an ad-hoc experiment.  What I did was
> getting the curl result of "
> http://

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Documenting WMF-related data souces: some questions to help me do it better.

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello,
Maybe this is related: on meta wiki we try to instigate a collection of
information about the WM movement.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Chapters_Association/Research
Kind regards
Ziko


Am Mittwoch, 27. Februar 2013 schrieb Maria Miteva :

> Hi everyone,
>
> I am working on creating a single entry page describing all the data about
> Wikipedia and WMF projects available for researchers. The idea is to have a
> single location, which introduces all possible source of data and makes it
> easy for a newbie to understand what suits his/her needs and how to get and
> work with the data. This is meant to be useful to the users ( which is
> you), so I have a few questions to help me make it better:
>
>
>1. I was wondering if any of you has used data from sources other than
>the listed below and if yes, what?  • XML dumps
> • the API
> • the Toolserver (or it's future replacement on WMF Labs)
> • our live IRC feeds
> • our raw hourly pageview data dumps (and the rudimentary API that
>you can use to query them atstats.grok.se)
> • the sources listed on our (experimental) open data registry on the
>DataHub  http://datahub.io/group/wikimedia (includes DBpedia)
>
>2. Is there any specific information that you wished you had known
>when you started using WMF data but is not documented online?
>3. Do you have any datasets or tools for
>parsing/manipulating/visualizing data, which you think can be reused and
>you want to share? (Could be something you built or something you found and
>liked)
>4. What information should be included about each source. I am
>thinking about :
>   1. description of the data - content, format , method of collection
>   or how you can collect it, how often it is collected, for what period
>   2. skills required to get and work with the data ( PHP, SQL, etc.)
>   3. short sample
>   4. existing tools - for parsing, importing, etc.
>   5. maybe examples of projects where it was used?
>
> Any other comments/suggestions will be appreciated.
>
> Thank you in advance.
>
> Mariya
>
>
>
>
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki Research Jounal?

[Ziko van Dijk]

This is exactly my problem nowadays. I am a historian and don't have
much to say about software and data mining, but would like to read
more about the humanities approach with regard to Wikipedia. Readers
experiences and expectations, Wikipedia in school and university etc.
Kind regards
Ziko


2012/11/4 Juliana Bastos Marques :
> Ed and others, based on your observations, I'd like to pose a side question:
>
> The impression that I get from many of these symposia (and journals) is that
> there is not much space for research concerning Wikipedia and Education,
> such as teaching methodologies, case studies and such, not on the side of
> hard-science chunks of data.

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki Research Jounal…

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello,
I wouldn't call it a "wiki journal", that gives a wrong impression,
and also not call the draft like that.
Kind regards
Ziko

2012/11/2 Pierre-Carl Langlais :
>
> Thanks a lot for these interesting information. I have given a look at the
> French Institute of scientific evaluation (AERES). Their requirements are
> very simlar :
> (1) Open editorial comittee, with international range and a main focus of
> research.
> (2) Efficient selection process (which imply a significant rate of
> rejection)
> (3) International openness.
> (4) Institutionnal support (from scientific organization…)
> (5) Good quality management (timeliness…)
> (6) Implication in disciplinary and community debates.
>
> It's certainly far from the ambitious projects of emirjp, but I have
> expanded a bit my shaping device :
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Alexander_Doria/First_Proposal_for_a_Wiki_Journal
>
> Concerning the wiki vs. wider thematic, I think the matter ought to be
> considered on a strategic level. The wiki is undeniably a good market niche,
> as no specific journal covers the topics so far. Yet, as an experiment in
> open access, the journal may have some legitimacy to tackle collaborative
> and open knowledge wider thema. Therefore, I would rather support a flexible
> position : the main focus remains wiki-research even though the scientific
> comittee can, from time to time, go beyond this definite range.
>
> PCL
>
> I'd like to provide some data for comparison in terms of requirements for
> traditional academic journals. The Brazilian committee for my area that
> rates journals and acts as standard for cvs, tenures etc, lists [1]:
>
> - editor-in-chief
> - editorial committee
> - consultive committee
> - ISSN
> - editorial policies
> - submission rules
> - peer-review
> - at least 14 annual articles
> - institutional affiliation for authors
> - institutional affiliation for committee members
> - abstracts and keywords in at least two languages
> - dates for articles receives and for articles published
> - must have at least one year of existence
> - regular periodicity
>
> My area happens to be History, and I know maybe some of these requirements
> are not exactly fitting for the intended goal here. But, like I said, I'm
> just listing some elements you might consider including.
>
> Juliana.
>
>
> [1]
> http://www.capes.gov.br/images/stories/download/avaliacao/Qualis_-_Historia.pdf
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais
>  wrote:
>>
>>
>> I have just made a very quick draft to have a general idea of what the
>> journal could be :
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Alexander_Doria/First_Proposal_for_a_Wiki_Journal
>>
>> It includes notably a « Making-Of » section that comprises all the working
>> and contextual texts that are not visible in most academic journals.
>>
>> PCL
>>
>> As far as my experience goes, the required group of editors would be an
>> editor-in-chief, an executive committee and a scientific committee, mostly
>> responsible for the peer reviews. Since I would like to participate, this
>> reminds me what criteria would be adopt for recruiting these, and how this
>> decision will be taken. I also assume that one or more universities (or an
>> academic institution, for that matter) would have to provide support - as
>> of, "published by...".
>>
>> Of course, this is the traditional way... Some things can be changed, but
>> others need to be retained in order for the journal to receive academic
>> recognition.
>>
>> Juliana.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> One idea would be to appoint one or several volunteer editor(s). They
>>> could ensure all the formal and administrative aspects of the journal:
>>> receiving and anonymizing the propositions, publishing them on the wiki,
>>> editing the final Wiki and PDF versions, keep in touch with ISI and other
>>> evaluation system and so on…
>>>
>>> @emirjp : well you can already count me in :)
>>>
 Not my case, but I understand that there are people in that situation.
 This story was the same in 2001, when people thought that only an
 expert-written encyclopedia with very rigid methods would be successful.

 Good for you, but it is somewhat irrelevant. I'd speculate that possibly
 even most of the academic journals' production is done by people who do 
 have
 to care where they publish. Per comparing the situation to Wikipedia in
 2001, I want to firmly state that oranges are much better than apples.

 Entering the journal rankings is based on citation numbers, right? I did
 this suggest thinking on the valuable researchers in this list, which may 
 be
 interested in publishing/peer-reviewing stuff in the journal. Won't you 
 cite
 that papers?

 The JCR journal ranking, which so far is the only one that matters (in
 spite of its major flaws, methodological issues, etc.), bases on the number
 of

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki Research Jounal…

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello,
I find it a very good idea (I expressed it in 2008 or 2009); the focus
should be somewhat defined, e..g wiki's and open content; and it
should be done in a way that others respect the journal.
Kind regards
Ziko

2012/11/2 Juliana Bastos Marques :
> As far as my experience goes, the required group of editors would be an
> editor-in-chief, an executive committee and a scientific committee, mostly
> responsible for the peer reviews. Since I would like to participate, this
> reminds me what criteria would be adopt for recruiting these, and how this
> decision will be taken. I also assume that one or more universities (or an
> academic institution, for that matter) would have to provide support - as
> of, "published by...".
>
> Of course, this is the traditional way... Some things can be changed, but
> others need to be retained in order for the journal to receive academic
> recognition.
>
> Juliana.
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais
>  wrote:
>>
>>
>> One idea would be to appoint one or several volunteer editor(s). They
>> could ensure all the formal and administrative aspects of the journal:
>> receiving and anonymizing the propositions, publishing them on the wiki,
>> editing the final Wiki and PDF versions, keep in touch with ISI and other
>> evaluation system and so on…
>>
>> @emirjp : well you can already count me in :)
>>
>>> Not my case, but I understand that there are people in that situation.
>>> This story was the same in 2001, when people thought that only an
>>> expert-written encyclopedia with very rigid methods would be successful.
>>>
>>> Good for you, but it is somewhat irrelevant. I'd speculate that possibly
>>> even most of the academic journals' production is done by people who do have
>>> to care where they publish. Per comparing the situation to Wikipedia in
>>> 2001, I want to firmly state that oranges are much better than apples.
>>>
>>> Entering the journal rankings is based on citation numbers, right? I did
>>> this suggest thinking on the valuable researchers in this list, which may be
>>> interested in publishing/peer-reviewing stuff in the journal. Won't you cite
>>> that papers?
>>>
>>> The JCR journal ranking, which so far is the only one that matters (in
>>> spite of its major flaws, methodological issues, etc.), bases on the number
>>> of citations counted ONLY in other journals already listed in it.
>>>
>>> But there are also threshold requirements to be even considered for JCR
>>> ranking, and obviously a double-blind peer reviews is a must. For practical
>>> reasons of indexing, paper redistribution, etc., PDFs and numbered pages
>>> also make life of a person who wants to cite a paper much easier.
>>>
>>> While I support your idea in principle, I think that it requires much
>>> more effort, planning, and understanding of how academic publishing and
>>> career paths actually work, than in the concept of "all we need is wiki".
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>>
>>> dj
>>> ___
>>> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> www.domusaurea.org
>
> ___
> 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] Research areas

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello,
Great list; I will have a closer look later.
Sometimes I have the impression that Wikipedia research is mostly
counting bits and bytes and less qualitative research in the field of
'social sciences'.
Kind regards
Ziko


2012/10/4 Dariusz Jemielniak :
> I'd definitely add the issues of governance, the social organization of
> work, etc.
>
> dj
>
> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 7:25 PM, emijrp  wrote:
>>
>> Hi;
>>
>> I'm compiling a list of research areas inside the study of wikis. I would
>> like to receive your feedback. Any suggestion or improvement?
>>
>> See here: http://wikipapers.referata.com/wiki/List_of_research_areas
>>
>> Thanks,
>> emijrp
>>
>> --
>> Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada. E-mail: emijrp AT gmail DOT com
>> Pre-doctoral student at the University of Cádiz (Spain)
>> Projects: AVBOT | StatMediaWiki | WikiEvidens | WikiPapers | WikiTeam
>> Personal website: https://sites.google.com/site/emijrp/
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> __
> dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
> profesor zarządzania
> kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
> i centrum badawczego CROW
> Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
> http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
>
> ___
> 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] Introduction and a simple question

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello,

Of course, there are several ways of writing a Wikipedia language
version's history, if that is the objective. Andrew Lih's work I
wouldn't call sloppy, but rather an essayist approach as it suits well
in the world of journalism. As a historian I would do things
different, certainly.

Deliberating on the writing of Wikipedia history, I once asked myself:
a what history would that be? A history of growing articles, a history
of a community, a history of something else? What are the elements
that would correspond to social history or constitutional history in a
different context? What sources are availbale, which one do you want
to use, how will that affect your goals...

I don't know what you are exactly looking for, but for writing
history, one should in the beginning ask oneself what the history will
exactly be about.

Kind regards
Ziko

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Very good

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello, in the risk that I answer to a hacked account again, no hard
feelings and please excuse my stiff reaction. Nice that you are back.
Kind regards
Ziko


2011/12/19 mohamad mehdi :
> Hello everyone,
>
> I have just read the comments related to an email I have sent earlier. My
> hotmail account was hacked and was sending spams to my contacts.
> Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience this might have caused.
>
> Regards,
> Mohamad
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>



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

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] very good

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello.
I would find it nicer that someone, who posts here, writes shortly in
his own words what the link is all about. :-) Maybe the subject is not
interesting for me, and then I wouldn't like to waste my time with the
video. So right now, I don't click on the link, sorry.
Ziko

2011/12/13 mohamad mehdi :
> Click here to see the attached video
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>



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

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Foundation-l] Fundraising is for men

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello,
Indeed I think that most people don't know much about the world behind
Wikipedia, and only few have a distinct opinion about "sexism and
Wikipedia".
Kind regards
Ziko


2011/11/30 Sam Katz :
> I have a significant problem with making assumptions before you start your
> research. Control for confirmation bias. Be careful. Also, keep in mind that
> some wikipedia articles may appeal more to a specific demographic than
> others. Also, editing wikipedia is still highly technical due to formatting,
> though has gotten a lot better.
>
> --Sam
>
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 4:19 PM, emijrp  wrote:
>>
>> 2011/11/29 Thomas Dalton 
>>>
>>> On 29 November 2011 21:51, emijrp  wrote:
>>> > Dear all;
>>> >
>>> > We have heard many times that most Wikipedians are male, but have you
>>> > heard
>>> > about gender and fundraising? Some data from a 2010 study[1] and a 2011
>>> > German study[2] (question 20th of 22). People have said that Wikipedia
>>> > is a
>>> > sexist place which excludes women to edit. Looks like women neither are
>>> > interested on editing nor funding free knowledge.
>>> >
>>> > Is WMF working to increase female donors just like female editors?
>>>
>>> I think the first step would be to try and figure out if women are
>>> visiting the site and not donating or just not visiting at all.
>>>
>>
>> So, the first step would be to try and figure out if women are visiting
>> the site and not editing or just not visiting at all, before saying nonsense
>> about sexism and Wikipedia community.
>>
>>>
>>> You would also want to make sure there really is a significant
>>> imbalance and that it's not just that men are more likely to fill out
>>> the survey form.
>>>
>>
>> That affects to all surveys, again.
>>
>> Looks like people only care about surveys which say what they want to
>> read.
>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> foundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-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
>



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

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wikimedia Research Newsletter launched

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello, I have mentioned the newsletter on :de:Wikipedia:Kurier, and
look for other places. It's worth that more Wikimedians learn about.
Kind regards
Ziko

2011/9/3 Dario Taraborelli :
> Reid, we're working on that – stay tuned
>
> Dario
>
> On Sep 3, 2011, at 7:12 AM, Reid Priedhorsky wrote:
>
>> On 09/02/11 17:21, Asaf Bartov wrote:
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> I think it desirable to post this on Internal-L as well, at least for
>>> the first couple of issues, to get this concise information to many of
>>> our local Wikimedian communities.  I expect there are quite a few people
>>> who could be interested in this, but currently aren't _aware_ of there
>>> being anything to be interested in... :)
>>>
>>> (Maybe also add an explicit invitation to join the Research community
>>> and to look at relevant Meta pages.)
>>
>> Is there an RSS feed for these newsletters? I'd love to keep up to date
>> on them, and that's my canonical way of following "stuff to read".
>>
>> I didn't see one during a brief look at the newsletter web pages.
>>
>> Reid
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>



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

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

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

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello,

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

Kind regards
Ziko

2011/6/16 fox :
> Il 16/06/2011 06:40, Ed Summers ha scritto:
>> I've been looking to experiment with node.js lately and created a
>> little toy webapp that displays updates from the major language
>> wikipedias in real time
>
>
> It's really nice, i think that would be great having an API to use that
> data for other web apps (for example to get the last page that has been
> edited from the english wikipedia in JSON or XML format).
>
> Good job ;)
>
> --
> f.
>
>  "I didn't try, I succeeded"
>  (Dr. Sheldon Cooper, PhD)
>
> ()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
> /\  www.asciiribbon.org   - against proprietary attachments
>
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>



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

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Anonymous users

[Ziko van Dijk]

Dear colleague,

Maybe I don't totally unterstand what you are surprised about. :-) It
happens a lot that people edit Wikipedia without being logged-in,
indeed.

I don't know how to find out how many people first edit unregistered
and later register, but I believe that it is quite common. This is btw
not very good because editing without registration has a lot of
negative side effects.

I wouldn't speak about "anonymous users" because that sounds as if you
are no longer anonymous after registration. Many people believe that
registration means that they have to reveal their identity and so they
don't register.

Some statistics:
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm#anonymous

Kind regards
Ziko van Dijk


2011/5/17 Giovanni Luca Ciampaglia :
> Hello list,
> Some time ago I was reading a blog created by a group of editors of the
> Italian Wikipedia for the 10 years birthday of Wikipedia. [1] There was
> an interesting series of posts written by some prominent members of the
> community recalling their first experience with Wikipedia. What struck
> me from these accounts is that several of them wrote they had spent some
> time contributing anonymously before registering a user account.
>
> I was wondering if there are any figures on how systematic the
> phenomenon might be. Has anybody ever looked into this kind of questions
> (not necessarily in the context of Wikipedia)?
>
> Pointers to the literature would be very much appreciated :-)
>
> Cheers,
>
> [1]: http://dieciannidisapere.it/ (in Italian)
>
> --
> Giovanni Luca Ciampaglia
>
> Ph.D. Candidate
> Faculty of Informatics
> University of Lugano
> Web: http://www.inf.usi.ch/phd/ciampaglia/
>
> Bertastraße 36 * 8003 Zürich * Switzerland
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>



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

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] A new home for Wikimedia research? Come share your thoughts

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello,
It is a very good idea - as long as we don't get a new wiki for this
purpose (such as strategy.wiki, outreach.wiki).
Kind regards
Ziko

2011/5/16 Chitu Okoli :
> Hi Dario,
>
> I for one strongly support all the goals here. The lack of a unified
> researcher portal on Meta:
> * Makes it hard to find related research projects; and
> * Discourages me from posting information about what I'm currently doing,
> since it seems like no one will really look at it.
> I would definitely try to keep my current projects up-to-date if I knew
> there was one central portal that all other research pages on Meta or
> Wikipedia project pages pointed to, with minimal redundancies.
>
> Thanks for leading this project.
>
> ~ Chitu
>
>
>  Message original 
> Sujet: [Wiki-research-l] A new home for Wikimedia research? Come share
>  your thoughts
> De : Dario Taraborelli 
> Pour : Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> 
> Copie à : The Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee mailing list
> 
> Date : 13 Mai 2011 19:19:40
>
> The Wikimedia Research Committee [1] is currently considering a major
> overhaul of the research section on Meta-Wiki:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research/2011_overhaul
>
> The practical reason to start this process is to clean up and streamline
> pages used by the Wikimedia community and by the Foundation to document
> internal research projects and policies. The ambitious goal it to make
> Meta:Research the main hub where all research on Wikimedia projects (be it
> internal or external) is discussed, reviewed and tracked. The objectives we
> are hoping to achieve in the short term with this project are the following:
>
> make it easy for researchers to find the resources and WMF support they are
> looking for
> bring as much transparency as possible to research involving the Wikimedia
> community, by reducing attrition between the community and researchers and
> making sure research is not disruptive of editor activity
> design a scheme of incentives to increase researcher participation and to
> increase the number of projects included in the Wikimedia research directory
> design a series of incentives to nudge researchers towards releasing their
> datasets under an open license and publishing/self-archiving their research
> results via open access outlets/repositories.
>
> Our long-term vision aims to:
>
> provide support to the publication of research data on Wikimedia projects
> via a unified open data infrastructure [2]
> integrate structured bibliographic data into Meta:Research via whatever
> solution the community decides to adopt [3]
>
> Many on this list are already actively involved in editing and maintaining
> Meta research pages. Your feedback and suggestions on this project would be
> very valuable.
> Dario
>
> [1]  http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_Committee
> [2] We are currently reviewing a number of solutions to set up a central
> repository of open research data: http://bit.ly/OpenDataPlatforms
> [3] See the long discussion started on this list with this thread:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/2011-March/001361.html
>
>
> --
> Dario Taraborelli, PhD
> Senior Research Analyst
> Wikimedia Foundation
> http://wikimediafoundation.org
> http://nitens.org/taraborelli
>
> ___
> 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
>
>



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

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] my ph. d. -- still formulating a research question

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello Joe,

You are right, a good research question is the most important basis
for a thesis, and that it is why it is so difficult.
>From what I see in your mail, a-c is indeed like the three sides of
one and the same thing. What is overtly missing is the agent; "who" is
supposed to build?
In the Netherlands there is a project (government supported) to let
teachers create free textbooks or textbook materials so that the
government can save a lot of money ("Wikiwijs"). Is this kinda in the
direction you are thinking about?
And what is your faculty? Are you a mathematician, a sociologist? It
could be a good start to have look at the many projects to
collaboratively write textbooks, they exist also in English I am sure.
You could study them and tell what are the obstacles they are
struggling with?

Kind regards

Ziko van Dijk


2010/11/23 Joe Corneli :
> So far, the best phrasing I've come up with is: "What stands in the
> way of building and supplying low-cost, high-quality mathematics
> education via the internet?"
>
> The art of encyclopedia-building doesn't seem to carry over directly
> to education.  This should be of fairly general concern (the Wikimedia
> Foundation's mission is about developing and disseminating educational
> content).
>
> I think there's a knowledge gap in there, maybe more than one.  It's
> much easier for me to think about "engineering solutions" than it is
> to precisely specify a research problem question!!  In particular, I'm
> thinking about
>
> (a) building interactive textbooks that work for self-guided learners
> (b) building technologies to support live tutorials over the web
> (c) building infrastructure to help in developing good survey articles
> or similar content
>
> The faculty here might want me to "pick one", but this is hard for me
> to do because I see each of these three approaches as being part of
> the puzzle.  Asking how well one of them works in absence of the other
> is a bit like asking how well a fish can breathe in the absence of
> water.
>
> So maybe the "research question" is about asking: What is the family
> resemblance of (a)-(c)?  How do they work together as a system?  Or
> maybe the question is about whether a given implementation of (a)-(c)
> shows any promise?
>
> I seem to be struggling to switch from a hacking-oriented way of
> thinking about things to a research-oriented way of thinking about
> things.  I'd appreciate some feedback from those of you in a position
> to offer advice on these matters.
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>



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

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] RS: New Book: Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia

[Ziko van Dijk]

So my congratulations also to you, Mayo! Gaudeamus igitur...

I think that Wikipedians can be divided into an elder and a younger
generation. The elder are those who obtained their PhD without a
Wikipedia subject. :-)

Kind regards
Ziko


2010/9/22 Fuster, Mayo :
> Congratulations Joseph! Your articles were of great help to build upon for
> my dissertation on Governance of online creation communities (which by the
> way I defended yesterday!), now I look forward to the book. I am sure it
> will be an important contribution to feed Wikipedia research, Mayo
>
> «·´`·.(*·.¸(`·.¸ ¸.·´)¸.·*).·´`·»
> «·´¨*·¸¸« Mayo Fuster Morell ».¸.·*¨`·»
> «·´`·.(¸.·´(¸.·* *·.¸)`·.¸).·´`·»
>
> Research Digital Commons Governance: http://www.onlinecreation.info
> European University Institute - Phd Candidate
> School of information Berkeley Visiting researcher
> Phone Italy: (New!) 0039-3312805010 or 0039-0558409982
> Phone Spanish State: 0034-648877748
> E-mail: mayo.fus...@eui.eu
> Skype: mayoneti
> Identi.ca: Mayo
> Postal address: Badia Fiesolana - Via dei Roccettini 9, I-50014 San Domenico
> di Fiesole (FI) - Italy
> Fax [+39] 055 4685 201
>
>
>
> -Missatge original-----
> De: wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org en nom de Ziko van Dijk
> Enviat el: dl. 20/09/2010 17:50
> Per a: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> Tema: Re: [Wiki-research-l] New Book: Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture
> of Wikipedia
>
> 2010/9/20 emijrp :
>> Hi, what is the license of this book?
>>
>
> Incredible - how could I knew that this question will come? :-) (from
> anybody)
> Greetings, Joseph, wish you all the best with the book.
>
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
> --
> Ziko van Dijk
> Niederlande
>
> ___
> 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
>
>



-- 
Ziko van Dijk
Niederlande

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] New Book: Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia

[Ziko van Dijk]

2010/9/20 emijrp :
> Hi, what is the license of this book?
>

Incredible - how could I knew that this question will come? :-) (from anybody)
Greetings, Joseph, wish you all the best with the book.

Kind regards
Ziko

-- 
Ziko van Dijk
Niederlande

___
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 to solve three doubts on Wikipedia research data

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello,

Gregory (? if I remember well) mentioned in August 2009 this:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1446862
All examined sites spy on their visitors, but Wikimedia and Wikipedia.

Kind regards
Ziko


2010/4/11 Gregory Maxwell :
> On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Fuster, Mayo  wrote:
>> * Does the site learn from the navigation and searches? That is, if a
>> Wikipedia visitor who reads a Network entry then goes to the Manuel Castells
>> entry, Will the system understand there is a connexion between them? Will
>> next time put them together when presenting search results?
>
> No.
>
> Although that is an interesting area of research.
>
> Unfortunately, due to privacy concerns the data that would be required
> to invent such a system (search strings and search click through
> traces) is not available to the public.  (and in fact, the traces
> aren't really collected, currently, as far as I know)
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>



-- 
Ziko van Dijk
NL-Silvolde

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

[Wiki-research-l] End user programming

[Ziko van Dijk]

A lecture from googe techtalks, maybe also interesting for Wikipedians.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxpjGZinies

Kind regards
Ziko

-- 
Ziko van Dijk
NL-Silvolde

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

[Wiki-research-l] Dentistry in Wikipedia - a quantitative and qualitative analysis

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello,

A German PhD about dentristy articles in Wikipedia has been presented,
I now accidentally fell over it.

Kind regards
Ziko van Dijk



URL: http://www.freidok.uni-freiburg.de/volltexte/6884/

Lorenz, Annette
Beurteilung der Qualität zahnmedizinischer Einträge in Wikipedia - ein
Vergleich mit zahnmedizinischer Fachliteratur

Dentistry in Wikipedia - a quantitative and qualitative analysis


Kurzfassung in Englisch

The aim of this dissertation was to examine all 285 dental entries in
the German- language online encyclopedia WIKIPEDIA from November 2006
until January 2008 for their scientific quality.
For this purpose, the WIKIPEDIA entries were examined for their
correctness by relying on sources from the dental literature that were
found through electronic and manual searches. Every entry was
classified under one of the following headings: “textbook- suitable”,
“partially textbook-suitable” or “textbook-unsuitable”. The assessment
criteria included correctness of contents and furthermore spelling and
completeness alongside mistakes in style and language. In addition the
monthly increase in dental WIKIPEDIA articles published in 10 European
languages (i.e. “WIKIPEDIA versions”) was taken into account.
After the exclusion of 18 articles that appeared twice and one that
appeared three times, 256 keywords remained for assessment. From
these, four could not be included in the assessment as they contained
statements about individuals that could not be verified. From the 261
usable dental WIKIPEDIA entries, 28% were qualitatively comparable to
a textbook. Fifty-six percent of the contributions conveyed correct
knowledge; the quality of the presentation, however, was not
equivalent to that of a textbook. About 16% of the articles contained
mistakes regarding contents, and thus were not suitable for the
propagation of state-of-the-art dental knowledge. On average, 56 new
dental articles appeared every month, of which 3 were in German. With
51%, the English language formed the biggest portion of the total
number of dentistry-related entries.
As it is not possible for the WIKIPEDIA user to judge the quality of
the information presented, it is essential that she/he does not rely
blindly on the correctness of this online encyclopedia. An additional
information search is, therefore, indispensible. In general, however,
WIKIPEDIA would appear suitable to provide a quick, albeit somewhat
rough overview of dental topics. Thus far, no efforts have been made
to ensure a suitable quality of WIKIPEDIA entries. Conceivable would
be a form of “specialist jury”, comprised of dental specialists and
dental technicians. Such a body could examine, and if necessary,
correct contributions, before they are submitted to be included in
WIKIPEDIA. In addition, high-quality articles could be referenced, so
that the user receives a form of quality guide.

-- 
Ziko van Dijk
NL-Silvolde

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello Felipe,

Maybe we speak about different things now. At
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/BotActivityMatrix.htm

*de <http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaDE.htm>*
*ja<http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaJA.htm>
* *fr <http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaFR.htm>*
*it<http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaIT.htm>
* *pl <http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaPL.htm>*
*es<http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaES.htm>
* *nl <http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaNL.htm>*
*pt<http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaPT.htm>
* *ru <http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaRU.htm>*
*zh<http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaZH.htm>
* *sv <http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaSV.htm>*
*fi<http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaFI.htm>
**8%**6%**22%**25%**26%**15%**29%**30%**26%**15%**23%**22%*
The bot share of all edits is not that insignificant.

Ziko


2008/11/13 Felipe Ortega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Hi, Erik, and all.
>
> IMHO, it would be a good idea...but not definitely an urgent one. In our
> analyses on the top-ten Wikipedias, we found that bots contributions
> introduced very few noise in data (to be precise statistically, it was not
> significant at all).
>
> You also have the additional problem that some bots are not identified in
> the users_group table.
>
> My "practical impression" is that when you deal with overall figures, then
> bots are irrelevant. However, if you want to focus in special metrics like
> concentration indexes then their contribution DOES MATTER, since a very
> active bot in one month may ruin your measurments.
>
> Regards,
>
> Felipe.
>
>
> --- El mié, 22/10/08, Erik Zachte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
>
> > De: Erik Zachte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Asunto: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"
> > Para: wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Fecha: miércoles, 22 octubre, 2008 9:55
> > > Statistics, with "Wikipedians",
> > "active" and "very active users";
> >
> > > like often, Zachte's Statistics are great, but
> > easily misleading.
> >
> >
> >
> > Also keep in mind that most figures in wikistats still
> > include bot edits.
> >
> > IMO it becomes more and more urgent to present separate
> > counts for humans
> > and bots.
> >
> >
> >
> > For instance in eo: 54% of total edits for all time were
> > bot edits, but most
> >
> > of these will be from recent years, so the percentage will
> > be even higher
> >
> > for recent years.
> >
> >
> >
> > http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/BotActivityMatrix.htm
> >
> >
> >
> > Erik Zachte
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>



-- 
Ziko van Dijk
NL-Silvolde
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] The survey is finally here

[Ziko van Dijk]

>
> Disclaimer: I am not associated with UNU-Merit and had and have nothing
> to do with this survey (but I tried to keep Meta:GUS alive and
> sympathize with the new survey).
>
> --
> Piotr Konieczny
>


And I would not mind if you *were* associated. :-)

Indeed, the survey is important and we all hope that many Wikimedians
answer.

Does anybody know how long the survey will take, and when the results are
going to be published?

Ziko van Dijk



-- 
Ziko van Dijk
NL-Silvolde
___
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 pageview statistics

[Ziko van Dijk]

These statistics are really a great addition to Wikimedia Statistiks.
It seems to me that the declines in February and August in most of the
Wikipedia language editions relate to holidays?

It is amazing how many views the vo.WP shows. My theory is that the views
for a Wikipedia partly are not views from people how actually speak the
language. I suppose that a lot of Volapük views come from e.g. English
speaking people who see the en.WP article about their home town in the US
and then check the articles in other language editions.

Fy.WP has much better developped than co.WP, with ten times of the "real
articles", but it has only three times as many views. But fy.WP has only few
geographical stubs and similar pseudoarticles, compared to co.WP. In co.WP,
only ten % are real articles, the rest are Spanish or Italian cities (and
similar pseudo articles).

Ziko van Dijk

2008/10/20 Erik Moeller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> For those who haven't seen it, Erik Zachte has incorporated pageview
> statistics (based on Domas' data aggregation scripts, which are also
> used by stats.grok.se and others) into WikiStats.
>
> Related blog entry:
> http://infodisiac.com/blog/2008/10/wikimedia-page-view-stats-i/
>
> Example statistics for Wikipedia:
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesPageViewsMonthly.htm
>
> Big thanks to Erik for these stats. :-)
>
> --
> Erik Möller
> Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
>
> Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>



-- 
Ziko van Dijk
NL-Silvolde
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"

[Ziko van Dijk]

aterial you have, the
> stronger the threshold number that you pick.  (you then can change "may
> be" into "more likely")
>  Again, as for the foreign helpers, I do think it depends on contexts
> and the questions you are asking.  Try to think how do you apply that
> model into minority language or dialect on other Wikipedia projects.  It
> is not as simple as you imagine to be, such as Latin, Hakka, etc.  Also,
> since the machine-translated content across Wikipedia, though not
> allowed, is still quiet common.  You have to define what do you mean by
> foreign helpers or native contributors.  It is not totally impossible
> for a foreign helper to have a native account.  Some foreign helpers may
> read but does not write, so their contribution pattern may be different.
>  Having said that, I guess on this point you can simply say that it is
> not of your research interest and treat them as outliers (as in
> quantitative methods).  Do remember to document that you do so as you do.
>  Some people get offended, I guess, because you seem to make a hasty
> generalization and a strong definition without enough evidence. The
> first version you propose "I calculate" is very problematic in this
> regard.
>  Research is always a balance between making things forward and solid
> steps.  The suggestions that I made are not designed to slow you down or
> stop you, but rather a warm reminder that you jump too fast. Reagle's
> research uses the self-reported category of "active users" can provide
> some dimension on self-perception.  It might be interesting to see how
> the two dimensions (perceived and edit frequency) match or mismatch in
> the future.  It is through reviewing previous work that you can make
> solid advance, though sometimes it is felt to be a drag.
>
> hanteng
>
> Ziko van Dijk wrote:
> > Dear Han-Teng,
> >
> > Thank you for the substantial answer, which helps me to go on.
> >
> > My problem is that my technical skills are limited, and I am also
> > looking for methods that can easily be applied by all Wikipedia
> > researchers (and to all WPs). There is no problem to tell how many
> > "regular contributors" vls.WP has, because they are only three guys
> > who know each other well.
> >
> > I have counted with the help of "Recent Changes", and looked closer at
> > those Wikipedians who did at least one edit in one specific week.
> > Otherwise I would not have known where to look. Maybe I should look
> > longer that a week (like three months and then drop the
> > six-months-ago-first-edit-criterion), but that would mean a lot of
> > more work, at least in those bigger Wikipedias.
> >
> > I have chosen a minimum of 10 edits because Wikimedia Statistics does
> > so for "Wikipedians". It seems enough to see wether a person (usually
> > an I.P.) shows interest only in one specific article he wants to set
> > right, but is not interested in editing after that. By the way, if I
> > would shorten the six months (first edit) to three, the number of
> > regular contributors would raise from 71 to 80. May be suitable as well.
> >
> > I consider only speakers of the language concerned because only they
> > can contribute sence having text (it does not matter whether they
> > contribute a lot of content, but that they can do). The Foreign
> > Helpers are very important, but secondary. They would not "exist" if
> > speakers of the language had not created content etc. One cannot do
> > interwiki linking and anti-vandalism if there is no WP or no article.
> >
> > Ziko
> >
> >
> > 2008/10/22 Han-Teng Liao (OII) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>:
> > > Put the philosophical questions aside, "analytical" categories
> > (rather than
> > > social categories) should be linked to your research questions.
> > Analytical
> > > categories should thus not be universal in this sense, but rather
> > are tied
> > > back to your research questions.
> > >
> > > I guess it is better to say, "I develop a way to define a 'regular
> > > contributor'in eo.WP" rather than "I calculated a..." because it
> > is not
> > > a pure math calculation but a definition with your own making (and the
> > > following credits AND responsibility).
> > >
> > > The below is a point-to-point critique and suggestions...
> > >
> > > * made at least one edit in that week
> > > --It seems arbitrary to come up with a number within a certain time
> >

Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"

[Ziko van Dijk]

Dear Han-Teng,

Thank you for the substantial answer, which helps me to go on.

My problem is that my technical skills are limited, and I am also looking
for methods that can easily be applied by all Wikipedia researchers (and to
all WPs). There is no problem to tell how many "regular contributors" vls.WP
has, because they are only three guys who know each other well.

I have counted with the help of "Recent Changes", and looked closer at those
Wikipedians who did at least one edit in one specific week. Otherwise I
would not have known where to look. Maybe I should look longer that a week
(like three months and then drop the six-months-ago-first-edit-criterion),
but that would mean a lot of more work, at least in those bigger Wikipedias.

I have chosen a minimum of 10 edits because Wikimedia Statistics does so for
"Wikipedians". It seems enough to see wether a person (usually an I.P.)
shows interest only in one specific article he wants to set right, but is
not interested in editing after that. By the way, if I would shorten the six
months (first edit) to three, the number of regular contributors would raise
from 71 to 80. May be suitable as well.

I consider only speakers of the language concerned because only they can
contribute sence having text (it does not matter whether they contribute a
lot of content, but that they can do). The Foreign Helpers are very
important, but secondary. They would not "exist" if speakers of the language
had not created content etc. One cannot do interwiki linking and
anti-vandalism if there is no WP or no article.

Ziko


2008/10/22 Han-Teng Liao (OII) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Put the philosophical questions aside, "analytical" categories (rather
than
> social categories) should be linked to your research questions.
Analytical
> categories should thus not be universal in this sense, but rather are tied
> back to your research questions.
>
> I guess it is better to say, "I develop a way to define a 'regular
> contributor'in eo.WP" rather than "I calculated a..." because it is
not
> a pure math calculation but a definition with your own making (and the
> following credits AND responsibility).
>
> The below is a point-to-point critique and suggestions...
>
> * made at least one edit in that week
> --It seems arbitrary to come up with a number within a certain time frame.
> Again, if you can come up with a distribution of edits over contributors,
> either through previous study or your study, that the contributors who
match
> your profile have made 75% of the new edits in the past month (the time
> frame issue still needs to be sorted out about the frequency of edits), it
> will be much convincing
>
> * obviously speaks Esperanto (is no "foreign helper" like someone who
> does Interwiki linking)
> --If your research question is about actual content contributor in the
> strict sense, then you might "exclude" those foreign helpers.  However,
you
> have take that as limitation because you might lose those who provide
> foreign links then have real impact on the content.  To my limited
> experience in Chinese Wikipedia, these happen quiet often in entries and
> issues that involve East Asian or Sino-US context.
>
> * made his first edit at least six months ago
> --Again, it seems arbitrary.  If you can come up a distribution of users'
> contribution over time (i.e. frequency), you might be able to develop a
> matrix that can include certain amount of people that you call "regular
> contributors).  You have to acknowledge that you exclude the newbies with
> this because you, again, cite previous research or use common sense,
> suggesting most of the newbies are not becoming "regular contributors".
> Still if you do so, you have to follow up on your research to see whether
it
> is true that those newbies do become "regular contributors" will not have
> significant impact on your results and analysis.
>
>
> * made at least ten edits at all
> --Again, it seems arbitrary.  Find the overall profile.  Define your
> questions.  Determine the selection threshold and be ready to defend your
> picks with previous research or common sense.
>
>
>
>
> Ziko van Dijk wrote:
>
> Hello,
> >From time to time I ask myself (and others) what is a "regular
> contributor" to a Wikipedia language edition. According to "Tell us
> about your Wikipedia" the definitions are quite different.
> At eo.WP I once checked a week long (in this August) who was making
> edits, and I calculated a "regular contributor" if someone
> * made at least one edit in that week
> * obviously speaks Esperanto (is no "foreign helper" like someone who
> does Interwiki

[Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello,
>From time to time I ask myself (and others) what is a "regular
contributor" to a Wikipedia language edition. According to "Tell us
about your Wikipedia" the definitions are quite different.
At eo.WP I once checked a week long (in this August) who was making
edits, and I calculated a "regular contributor" if someone
* made at least one edit in that week
* obviously speaks Esperanto (is no "foreign helper" like someone who
does Interwiki linking)
* made his first edit at least six months ago
* made at least ten edits at all
My result was: 71, compared to 141 "active users" and 50 "very active
users" (Wikimedia Statistics, May 2008).
What do you think about this definition?
Kind regards
Ziko van Dijk


-- 
Ziko van Dijk
NL-Silvolde

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