I am with you 100% on the principle that if we don't change how we do things,
nothing will change in terms of our outcomes. But I guess what we are debating
is what the change should be.
Our problem is indeed one of ideology as we have three statements of ideology
underpinning Wikipedia. We
whoops, last sentence of paragraph #5 should read "You *CAN* have higher
walls and easier quality control, but you can't have higher walls and
higher newcomer retention (or diversity)."
On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 9:45 AM Jonathan Morgan
wrote:
> Kerry,
>
> I like this a lot except for one small,
Kerry,
I like this a lot except for one small, but critical, distinction. I want
to get your take on it (yours specifically, in this case, because of your
background and the thought you've put into this issue).
I think that explicitly forbidding newcomers from performing certain kinds
of
Those all sound like good suggestions. I have flagged this entire
conversation for me to review if and when I get funding for continuing work
on my project. I hope that the WMF Growth team is also aware of this
conversation.
By the way, Edward, if you're still reading this, thanks for letting us
Stripping out a long email trail ...
I am not advocating lowering the BLP bar as there are genuine legal needs to
prevent libel.
What I am advocating is not letting new users do their first edits in “high
risk” articles. When I do training, I pick exercises for the group which
deliberately
Further thought regarding the notability criteria for BLPs: Asaf made a
suggestion awhile ago, and unfortunately I can't remember exactly where I
heard about it, but I thought that it was a good idea. He suggested being
more context-specific when considering the bar for BLPs. I think that his
From: Wiki-research-l on behalf
of Kerry Raymond
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2018 1:05:02 AM
To: 'Research into Wikimedia content and communities'
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are
published!
Pine
This paper has some good studies about gender and ne
To: Wiki Research-l
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are
published!
Kerry,
This discussion about reverts, combined with my recent experience on ENWP,
makes me wonder if there's a way to make reverts feel less hostile on average.
Do you have any ideas
:21 PM
To: kerry.raym...@gmail.com
Cc: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
; Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are
published!
Hello Kerry,
Sorry, I did not see all the mails and the context before.
I
Kerry,
This discussion about reverts, combined with my recent experience on ENWP,
makes me wonder if there's a way to make reverts feel less hostile on
average. Do you have any ideas about how to do that?
Thanks,
Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
t 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-
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-resear
: 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
at
>> 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.
>>
>> K
un...@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 tha
Hoi,
FYI https://tools.wmflabs.org/scholia/work/Q27797938
The point is that the relevance of research and of its authors becomes
increasingly clear from the data we hold in Wikidata.
Thanks,
GerardM
On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 at 02:05, Kerry Raymond wrote:
> Pine
>
> This paper has some good
d, some honestly believe that
> > the high quality work of certain individuals justifies a certain level of
> > snark, even to the point of harassment. Others, including myself, believe
> > that tolerance of bad behaviour drives away some good editors and fails
> to
> > impr
-Original Message-
From: Kerry Raymond [mailto:kerry.raym...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, 28 September 2018 10:05 AM
To: 'Research into Wikimedia content and communities'
Subject: RE: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are
published!
Pine
This paper has some good
Pine
This paper has some good studies about gender and new editors and reverting
-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 Wikim
esearch-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
I believe administrators outside of the US, in en wikipedia and in wikidata
etc.,
do not understand, our freedom of speech and our right to due process, and
that there is a cultural misunderstanding and a lack of patience on there
part,
which leads to an abuse of power and a breaking
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
eve
> > that the high quality work of certain individuals justifies a certain
> > level of snark, even to the point of harassment. Others, including
> > myself, believe that tolerance of bad behaviour drives away some good
> > editors and fails to improve the beh
gt; with stricter civility enforcement. It would be really useful to have
> a study one could point to when that argument next recurs.
>
> Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
> ________
> From: Wiki-research-l on
> behalf of Pine W
> Sent: W
t next recurs.
>
> Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
> ____________
> From: Wiki-research-l on
> behalf of Pine W
> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2018 8:29:32 AM
> To: Wiki Research-l
> Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wiki
esults from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are
published!
I'm going to respond to Kerry and Jonathan in two parts of one email.
--
Hi Kerry, I did not say that transparency should be a free-for-all, and
it's important to keep in mind that transparency from my perspective is
intended to ensure due p
Instead of putting down every idea as not being able to work without the
benefit of an experiment, let's reverse the question.
Researchers, forgetting for a moment whether the community would accept it, if
you were asked by the WMF BoT to make recommendations on experiments to run on
en.WP to
I'm going to respond to Kerry and Jonathan in two parts of one email.
--
Hi Kerry, I did not say that transparency should be a free-for-all, and
it's important to keep in mind that transparency from my perspective is
intended to ensure due process for everyone involved. That includes
ensuring
hifting the livestreams so everyone gets a chance to
> participate live. One small step that WMF could take ...
>
> Kerry
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wiki-research-l [mailto:wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org]
> On Behalf Of Pine W
> Sent: Satur
Pine, I would absolutely disagree with you about off-wiki transparency. Why
should a woman have to publicly disclose the contents of a thoroughly
disgusting sexual email for public entertainment because they reverted some
guy's edit. Why should a women be expected to provide details of an
live. One small step that WMF could take ...
>
> Kerry
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wiki-research-l [mailto:wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org]
> On Behalf Of Pine W
> Sent: Saturday, 15 September 2018 1:52 PM
> To: Wiki Research-l
> Subject: Re: [Wiki-researc
ld take ...
Kerry
-Original Message-
From: Wiki-research-l [mailto:wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
Behalf Of Pine W
Sent: Saturday, 15 September 2018 1:52 PM
To: Wiki Research-l
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are
publis
Hi Edward, I'm surprised that this thread only appears in my email under
Research-l, but I can see in the WMF mail archives that you sent the email
to other lists also. I wonder if that happened because you used bcc. Maybe
there is a bug in Gmail. On the topic of diversity research, thanks for the
>
> others I am not uncertain whether we put a lot of attention (Education &
> Age),
>
Oops - meant to say "I am not certain.."
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Thanks for your note Pine. I believe I have already shared this on
Wikimedia-l; I haven't shared to Announce, so I can do that.
"Diversity" is multifaceted. I think that some areas offer some hope (e.g.
program organizers & affiliate organizers have higher proportion of women
and geographic
unsubscribe
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 6:07 PM Edward Galvez wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm excited to share that our annual survey about Wikimedia communities is
> now published!
>
> This survey included 170 questions and reaches over 4,000 community
> members across
> four audiences:
37 matches
Mail list logo
