Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 124, Issue 54

[Jai Mata Ki]

The mother bless us ,
my all Dearer ,
as you know , all is well , but everyone can not feel as all , so please change 
your feeling and expresion .
Thanks ,
+91-9307788333

wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:

>Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
>   wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>   https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>   wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
>   wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: AFD survey (Fæ)
>   2. Re: AFD survey (Amir E. Aharoni)
>   3. Re: AFD survey (Marc A. Pelletier)
>   4. Re: Lsjbot i Wall street jpournal and BBC world (Ilario Valdelli)
>   5. On historical event / WMRS Microgrants 2014 (Milos Rancic)
>   6. Re: On historical event / WMRS Microgrants 2014 (Jon Davies)
>
>
>--
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 13:02:30 +0100
>From: Fæ 
>To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
>Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] AFD survey
>Message-ID:
>   
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
>On 16 July 2014 12:39, Lane Rasberry  wrote:
>...
>> I asked this researcher to discontinue the survey pending a check on the
>> impact of it on the Wikipedia community. I said this because I feel they
>> are out of compliance with even the soft suggestions in research that are
>> available, and they know this.
>
>Good point. If anyone wanted to research deletion discussion patterns
>and outcomes on the English Wikipedia or other projects, I could knock
>out a nice analysis using a little passive but intelligent bot work
>depending on their requirements. I'm easy to find.
>
>I'm pretty sure this would be a lot cheaper in volunteer time or
>research time than creating surveys to answer very similar questions,
>particularly if the resulting report were freely published so that
>volunteers could give their "subjective value responses" to that
>instead.
>
>Fae
>-- 
>fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
>
>
>--
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 15:43:48 +0300
>From: "Amir E. Aharoni" 
>To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
>Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] AFD survey
>Message-ID:
>   
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
>Good points, Lane. Such things were possibly discussed before, but it's the
>first time that I see it it spelled out like this.
>
>This approach should be advertised a bit somehow, so that the researchers
>know how to do it ethically and for everybody's benefit, and so that the
>experienced Wikipedians would know not to start answering such surveys.
>
>
>--
>Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
>http://aharoni.wordpress.com
>‪“We're living in pieces,
>I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
>
>
>2014-07-16 14:39 GMT+03:00 Lane Rasberry :
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I feel that this is an unethical research project and I have told the
>> researcher so. We exchanged several emails and were unable to understand
>> each other. I asked them to please have their university ethics board
>> contact me.
>>
>> I asked the researcher about RCOM and other things. This person said they
>> posted to RCOM, but "the Meta page states that submissions should receive
>> responses within 1-2 weeks, and yet our messages went unanswered. We have
>> institutional ethics approval, but that doesn't last indefinitely, and so
>> after receiving no response we opted to go ahead."
>>
>> I am not going to share more than
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research Committee

[Nathan]

And... unsurprisingly, Aaron has reverted the changes I referred to above.
Not with any explanation, of course, other than "not true." Looking at the
list of "reviewed" projects (where the review appears to constitute a small
handful of questions on the talkpage), the RCOM has reviewed a total of 10
projects in its history. I'm excluding the one where Aaron himself is a
co-investigator.

That might sound like a substantial amount, but in 2013 and 2014 the rate
so far is 1 (one) per *year*. Meanwhile, the AfD request languished for 7
months without a peep from Aaron or someone on RCOM. Since we're on the
subject, let's look at the research index and see what we can see.

# There is a "Gender Inequality Index" that has no comments from RCOM,
posted a month ago.
# We have "Modeling monthly active editors" submitted by Aaron himself.
This is worth looking at[1] as evidently an example of what an RCOM member
considers sufficient description of a research project. Specifically,
nothing at all.
# "Number of books read by WikiWriters" a page written by a high school
student that should have been deleted but hasn't been, suggesting the
submissions may not be closely monitored...
# "Use of Wikipedia by doctors" submitted both to RCOM and to IEG in March,
no comment by RCOM.
# Chinese Wikivoyage, created in January, no comment by RCOM.
# SSAJRP program - extensively documented, posted in October 2013, no
comment from RCOM and no RCOM liaison. This research is ongoing.
# Gender assymetry, posted in September 2013, no comment from RCOM.
# Dynamics of inclusion and exclusion, August 2013, no comment or
participation from RCOM.

I'm sure the list could go on, because the pattern is perfect - virtually
the only projects to get participation from either Dario or Aaron are those
managed by WMF staff members (and most often, Aaron himself is the
investigator). But the inactivity of RCOM is not news to the WMF. In
December of last year, Dario posted to rcom-l [2] that "The Research
Committee as a group with a fixed membership and a regular meeting schedule
has been inactive for a very long time." He then stated that "...the
existence of a fixed-membership group with a recognized authority on any
possible matter related to Wikimedia research and associated policies has
ceased to be a priority." Another member of RCOM, WMF employee Jonathan
Morgan, said in June on meta "I'm not sure what RCOM's mandate is these
days." When asked in March how many projects RCOM had actually approved, it
took Aaron four months to reply.[3]

So it is factually incorrect to suggest in documentation that RCOM approval
is required for anything; it's clear that RCOM as a body does not actually
exist. It may be argued that the approval of one of the two involved WMF
employees is required. If that's the case, then at least based on public
evidence they have been doing an absolutely woeful job of keeping up with
this labor. I'll admit it's possible that all of the communication has been
via e-mail, and in actuality Aaron and Dario have been very busy providing
feedback to non-WMF researchers. If that's the case, or of I'm missing some
other function that RCOM fulfills, I'd love to hear about it. Otherwise it
appears that RCOM is primarily an obstacle to prevent non-WMF researchers
from conducting research, a strange policy indeed.

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Modeling_monthly_active_editors
[2] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/rcom-l/2013-December/000600.html
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Research_talk%3ASubject_recruitment&diff=9220467&oldid=9220082
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] On historical event / WMRS Microgrants 2014

[Kevin Gorman]

Congratulations to all involved, this is quite an auspicious start to a
project with a really remarkable amount of promise.

Best,
Kevin Gorman


On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Cornelius Kibelka 
wrote:

> Looks really nice. Could you send an update, when the files are uploaded?
> And a blog post would be wonderful :)
>
> Best!
> C.
>
> 
> Cornelius Kibelka
>
> Twitter: @jaancornelius
> Mobile:+351-91-9860232 (Vodafone PT)
> German number currently offline
>
>
>
>
> On 16 July 2014 18:02, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > WOW
> > Gerard
> >
> >
> > On 16 July 2014 17:31, Milos Rancic  wrote:
> >
> > > I am finally able to share with you the biggest benefit of WMRS
> > > Microgrants projects for this year. It's about cooperation with one
> > > very old institution, and it was necessary to wait for their formal
> > > letter.
> > >
> > > But first about the side effects of the Microgrants project...
> > >
> > > When you are going outside and tell people that you are willing to
> > > support their projects, it could lead into interesting outcomes. It is
> > > important to understand possibilities which could be opened and catch
> > > them.
> > >
> > > We got one interesting proposal. It was about a long term project of
> > > making photos of one person. The project was very interesting, but it
> > > turned out that it's not suitable to be supported by Wikimedia, as
> > > well as the amount of needed money is so small, that I am able to fund
> > > it personally.
> > >
> > > However, that was not the end. That guy, an amateur photographer (with
> > > professional skills) is actually the top Serbian lector. He proofread
> > > the Orthography of Serbian language.
> > >
> > > He is also a lexicographer, working in Matica srpska [1].
> > >
> > > So, we met in my office. While drinking some alcohol, besides his own
> > > project, we were talking about the state of Serbian lexicography and
> > > culture in general.
> > >
> > > We were talking about Matica srpska, as well; about present financial
> > > state of the institution, which has money for salaries and the most
> > > important projects, but doesn't have for a number of projects.
> > >
> > > I had bold ideas, of course, but I was quite skeptical about rational
> > > possibility of cooperation between WMRS and Matica srpska. However, he
> > > convinced me that the president of MS is likely willing to cooperate
> > > and that we should talk about that.
> > >
> > > So he told me that he'll arrange the meeting with the president and
> > > that we should talk about that.
> > >
> > > Few weeks later I led WMRS delegation (our ED Mile and our program
> > > manager Ivana were in the delegation) to the initial talks with MS.
> > >
> > > I think we were talking two hours. And I am quite confident to tell
> > > you that on June 20th, 2014 happened one historical event, not just
> > > for Wikimedia Serbia, but also for Serbian culture and free knowledge.
> > >
> > > I wasn't able to talk about this till today, when we got formal letter
> > > from MS, which summarize our meeting and emphases their commitment to
> > > accessibility of knowledge to as much people as it's possible.
> > >
> > > If you are in Slavic culture in general, you should know what Matica
> > > srpska is. As the most of you are not, here is the story in short...
> > >
> > > MS is the oldest cultural and scientific institution in Serbia. They
> > > are the main lexicographical and encyclopedistic institution in
> > > Serbia. It isn't easily comparable with large cultures, but,
> > > basically, if we don't count independent institutions, 90% of
> > > dictionaries and the most important encyclopedias have been created
> > > inside of MS or with MS as the leader of the project.
> > >
> > > We share one important trait with the institutions like MS is. It's
> > > about long term goals. We want to start cooperation and develop it.
> > > So, we are starting with cooperation slowly. During the next year our
> > > goal is to liberate two dictionaries. One is ornithological, the other
> > > one covers dialects of Vojvodina.
> > >
> > > That's just the beginning, of course. Their editions are the main
> > > dictionaries of Serbian language and we'll discuss the next year about
> > > the steps toward liberating them. They are also in charge for creation
> > > of national encyclopedia, but it has its own Board and during the next
> > > months we should start talking with the Board, as well.
> > >
> > > The significance of this cooperation for Wikimedia is that we are at
> > > the beginning of the first close relations with one main national
> > > cultural institution, which focus is creating dictionaries and
> > > encyclopedias. They share our goals, as well as they want to cooperate
> > > with us.
> > >
> > > And it's not just about liberating content because we will help it
> > > financially. It's their commitment, as well. They want to share their
> > > content on Internet. With our (technological, lice

[Wikimedia-l] Research Committee

[Nathan]

Hi - copying this under a new subject that makes the topic more clear to
anyone skimming their inbox. Beyond the edits made below to clarify the
current practice, I was curious about the success and value of the RCOM in
general. First, I'm not aware of how active the committee was in the past
in reviewing proposals, and it's certainly possible a great deal of work
was done in this area.

But reading the "charter" for the committee and looking around meta for
related documentation, it appears that almost none of the elements of the
charter have been accomplished. Despite this, in an e-mail last year to the
RCOM list, Dario suggested that the continued operation of a membership
committee was no longer a priority. (Nor has it been for some time - the
last documented meeting was in 2011, the IRC channel has been mothballed,
and the last monthly report [issued in 2012] is no longer even available).

I gather that individually the members of the committee have created
research-related initiatives that are valuable, and that part of the
impetus for this work may have been collaboration through the vehicle of
the committee. However, the charter lays out some pretty worthwhile goals:
policies for conflicts of interest, guidelines for recruiting subjects, a
process for requesting non-public data, supporting research projects with
technical resources, creating an open-access policy, releasing a "starter
kit" for researchers, etc.

At least from the links within the orbit of the main RCOM page, it's not
clear to me that any of these goals have been achieved or even that
substantial progress has been made. If it has, then the RCOM is definitely
selling itself short by not making that more public. If indeed these are
all still outstanding goals, it's disappointing that the committee is
basically wound up without any hope or plan or achieving them.


On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Nathan  wrote:

> To avoid confusion with researchers in the future, I've made some minor
> changes to the research related pages on Meta (see below). This should help
> ensure that outdated documentation does not cause unnecessarily delay
> and/or expense for those interested in doing Wikimedia-related research.
>
> 1: Posted a notice to the top of
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Subject_recruitment to the
> effect that RCOM no longer evaluates research projects or participates in
> recruiting participants, and removed the assertion that research requires
> approval from RCOM.
>
> 2: Updated https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:FAQ to make it clear
> that the WMF / RCOM does not evaluate specific research proposals or assist
> in recruiting, and that any researcher intending to conduct on-wiki
> interaction should seek approval from the local projects using whatever
> methods have been established locally.
>
> 3: Removed the reference to RCOM approval from
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Projects
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Subject for Wikimedia Hackathon(s) 2014-2015: CoSyne

[Emeric Vallespi]

Hi,

WMFr is still thinking about organizing Wikimedia Hackathon in 2015. We are 
currently identifying the technical, financial and especially human resources 
needed to make it a success.

Frans, could you provide me/us your documentation or the link (Meta ?) ? It 
would be very useful.

Wikimedia France really wants to organize an international event in 2015.

Anyway, we believe that if another chapter wants to organize Hackathon it could 
be a waste of time for one of us to position our proposals against until the 
result.

So if a sister entity positions herself clearly and seriously to organize 
Wikimedia Hackathon we can discuss it.

Best regards,
--
Emeric Vallespi
Vice-Treasurer
Wikimedia France

emeric.valle...@wikimedia.fr
Twitter: @evallespi | Mob. +33 (0)6 61151312

On 14 juil. 2014, at 20:38, Frans Grijzenhout  wrote:

> Hi Balázs, WMNL hosted the international hackaton in 2013. Documentation is
> archived and thus still available and we are more than willing to help you
> in preparing the international hackaton in 2015.
> Regards, Frans
> 
> 
> 
> *Frans Grijzenhout*, voorzitter / chair
> fr...@wikimedia.nl
> +31 6 5333 9499
> http://www.wikimedia.nl/
> 
> *Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland*
> *Postadres*: *Bezoekadres:*
> Postbus 167   Mariaplaats 3
> 3500 AD  Utrecht3511 LH Utrecht
> 
> ABNAMRO NL33 ABNA 0497164833 - Kamer van Koophandel 17189036
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2014-07-14 16:56 GMT+02:00 Balázs Viczián :
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> WMHU would be interested in *hosting *a Hackathon in Hungary (anywhere) but
>> we would need a couple of international volunteers to help filling the core
>> of event (finding topics and speakers or building up the content in
>> general). In exchange, the rest (from side events to the smallest details)
>> can be left with us :)
>> 
>> Balazs
>> 
>> 
>> 2014-07-14 14:53 GMT+02:00 Frans Grijzenhout :
>> 
>>> Hi Romaine, this is to remind you that the CoSyne project was a research
>>> project, sponsored by the EU and conducted by different partners. The
>>> research has been concluded and the results have been reported early
>>> 2013..The technical infrastructure has sinds then been dismantled, so it
>>> will not be that easy to restart CoSyne. Regards, Frans
>>> 
>>> 
>>> *Frans Grijzenhout*, voorzitter / chair
>>> fr...@wikimedia.nl
>>> +31 6 5333 9499
>>> http://www.wikimedia.nl/
>>> 
>>> *Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland*
>>> *Postadres*: *Bezoekadres:*
>>> Postbus 167   Mariaplaats 3
>>> 3500 AD  Utrecht3511 LH Utrecht
>>> 
>>> ABNAMRO NL33 ABNA 0497164833 - Kamer van Koophandel 17189036
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 2014-07-09 23:44 GMT+02:00 Romaine Wiki :
>>> 
 I doubt if these tools are similar. But I do think they can benefit
>> from
 each other.
 
 Romaine
 
 
 2014-07-09 16:03 GMT+02:00 Antoine Musso :
 
> Le 09/07/2014 14:33, Romaine Wiki a écrit :
>> As a subject of one/more hackathons I would like to recommend
>> CoSyne
 [1].
>> CoSyne is translation and multilingual synchronisation tool. The
 project
>> was set up by Wikimedia Netherlands together with several
>>> universities
> and
>> other partners, including the EU. The tool makes it possible to
 translate
>> much more easier from one Wikipedia (etc) to another with much
>> better
>> quality translations than existing translating tools. It does not
 matter
> if
>> an article is already written, it is possible with this tool to
>>> expand
>> existing articles and to update articles with a new section when on
>>> one
>> Wikipedia this was added. It makes it possible to exchange
>>> information
 in
>> more languages and helps users to keep the articles up-to-date.
>> 
>> I have tested the Bèta version of this tool and these tests were
>> very
>> successful.
>> 
>> [1] https://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/CoSyne
>> 
>> Romaine
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Seems it is very similiar to the content translation Wikimedia i18n
>>> team
> is working on:
> 
> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Content_translation
> 
> Demo video:
>> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:CX_Section_Alignment_Preview_and_Basic_Editing.webm
> 
> 
> --
> Antoine "hashar" Musso
> 
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikim

Re: [Wikimedia-l] AFD survey

[Nathan]

To avoid confusion with researchers in the future, I've made some minor
changes to the research related pages on Meta (see below). This should help
ensure that outdated documentation does not cause unnecessarily delay
and/or expense for those interested in doing Wikimedia-related research.

1: Posted a notice to the top of
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Subject_recruitment to the effect
that RCOM no longer evaluates research projects or participates in
recruiting participants, and removed the assertion that research requires
approval from RCOM.

2: Updated https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:FAQ to make it clear
that the WMF / RCOM does not evaluate specific research proposals or assist
in recruiting, and that any researcher intending to conduct on-wiki
interaction should seek approval from the local projects using whatever
methods have been established locally.

3: Removed the reference to RCOM approval from
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Projects
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] On historical event / WMRS Microgrants 2014

[Cornelius Kibelka]

Looks really nice. Could you send an update, when the files are uploaded?
And a blog post would be wonderful :)

Best!
C.


Cornelius Kibelka

Twitter: @jaancornelius
Mobile:+351-91-9860232 (Vodafone PT)
German number currently offline




On 16 July 2014 18:02, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:

> Hoi,
> WOW
> Gerard
>
>
> On 16 July 2014 17:31, Milos Rancic  wrote:
>
> > I am finally able to share with you the biggest benefit of WMRS
> > Microgrants projects for this year. It's about cooperation with one
> > very old institution, and it was necessary to wait for their formal
> > letter.
> >
> > But first about the side effects of the Microgrants project...
> >
> > When you are going outside and tell people that you are willing to
> > support their projects, it could lead into interesting outcomes. It is
> > important to understand possibilities which could be opened and catch
> > them.
> >
> > We got one interesting proposal. It was about a long term project of
> > making photos of one person. The project was very interesting, but it
> > turned out that it's not suitable to be supported by Wikimedia, as
> > well as the amount of needed money is so small, that I am able to fund
> > it personally.
> >
> > However, that was not the end. That guy, an amateur photographer (with
> > professional skills) is actually the top Serbian lector. He proofread
> > the Orthography of Serbian language.
> >
> > He is also a lexicographer, working in Matica srpska [1].
> >
> > So, we met in my office. While drinking some alcohol, besides his own
> > project, we were talking about the state of Serbian lexicography and
> > culture in general.
> >
> > We were talking about Matica srpska, as well; about present financial
> > state of the institution, which has money for salaries and the most
> > important projects, but doesn't have for a number of projects.
> >
> > I had bold ideas, of course, but I was quite skeptical about rational
> > possibility of cooperation between WMRS and Matica srpska. However, he
> > convinced me that the president of MS is likely willing to cooperate
> > and that we should talk about that.
> >
> > So he told me that he'll arrange the meeting with the president and
> > that we should talk about that.
> >
> > Few weeks later I led WMRS delegation (our ED Mile and our program
> > manager Ivana were in the delegation) to the initial talks with MS.
> >
> > I think we were talking two hours. And I am quite confident to tell
> > you that on June 20th, 2014 happened one historical event, not just
> > for Wikimedia Serbia, but also for Serbian culture and free knowledge.
> >
> > I wasn't able to talk about this till today, when we got formal letter
> > from MS, which summarize our meeting and emphases their commitment to
> > accessibility of knowledge to as much people as it's possible.
> >
> > If you are in Slavic culture in general, you should know what Matica
> > srpska is. As the most of you are not, here is the story in short...
> >
> > MS is the oldest cultural and scientific institution in Serbia. They
> > are the main lexicographical and encyclopedistic institution in
> > Serbia. It isn't easily comparable with large cultures, but,
> > basically, if we don't count independent institutions, 90% of
> > dictionaries and the most important encyclopedias have been created
> > inside of MS or with MS as the leader of the project.
> >
> > We share one important trait with the institutions like MS is. It's
> > about long term goals. We want to start cooperation and develop it.
> > So, we are starting with cooperation slowly. During the next year our
> > goal is to liberate two dictionaries. One is ornithological, the other
> > one covers dialects of Vojvodina.
> >
> > That's just the beginning, of course. Their editions are the main
> > dictionaries of Serbian language and we'll discuss the next year about
> > the steps toward liberating them. They are also in charge for creation
> > of national encyclopedia, but it has its own Board and during the next
> > months we should start talking with the Board, as well.
> >
> > The significance of this cooperation for Wikimedia is that we are at
> > the beginning of the first close relations with one main national
> > cultural institution, which focus is creating dictionaries and
> > encyclopedias. They share our goals, as well as they want to cooperate
> > with us.
> >
> > And it's not just about liberating content because we will help it
> > financially. It's their commitment, as well. They want to share their
> > content on Internet. With our (technological, licensing etc.) help,
> > they will become the institution which shares their content by
> > default, no matter if we are involved or not.
> >
> > I know that this story is not applicable in many cases. It's not
> > rational to expect that the University of Oxford would do the same.
> > However, I am sure that this story *is* applicable in many cultures of
> > the similar size, like Serbian is.
> >
> > It is also 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] AFD survey

[Nathan]

On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 7:39 AM, Lane Rasberry 
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I feel that this is an unethical research project and I have told the
> researcher so. We exchanged several emails and were unable to understand
> each other. I asked them to please have their university ethics board
> contact me.
>
> I asked the researcher about RCOM and other things. This person said they
> posted to RCOM, but "the Meta page states that submissions should receive
> responses within 1-2 weeks, and yet our messages went unanswered. We have
> institutional ethics approval, but that doesn't last indefinitely, and so
> after receiving no response we opted to go ahead."
>
> I am not going to share more than this publicly, but in short, I talked
> with the researcher to the limit of their interest and they feel that they
> must proceed with the research.  Their oversight is at
> 



The survey is voluntary, obviously, and anyone who doesn't wish to
participate need not. No one is under any obligation to promote it, and we
have no rules barring anyone from posting a notice of such a survey to
public mailing lists. The survey may not be well designed (we don't
necessarily know the full aim of the research), or well targeted, but I do
not see how that makes it unethical. No time or effort is consumed that is
not volunteered by anyone who elects to participate.

The WMF research committee is not the sole arbiter of who can perform
research or analysis of the Wikimedia movement or any individual projects;
it merely promises recruiting assistance as the result of approval. The
proposal for this survey was submitted to RCOM in January, with evidently
no comment or contact from RCOM since. The RCOM page says it has not met
since 2011. The process appears to be defunct and no researcher should be
required to wait for it to be resurrected.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] On historical event / WMRS Microgrants 2014

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
WOW
Gerard


On 16 July 2014 17:31, Milos Rancic  wrote:

> I am finally able to share with you the biggest benefit of WMRS
> Microgrants projects for this year. It's about cooperation with one
> very old institution, and it was necessary to wait for their formal
> letter.
>
> But first about the side effects of the Microgrants project...
>
> When you are going outside and tell people that you are willing to
> support their projects, it could lead into interesting outcomes. It is
> important to understand possibilities which could be opened and catch
> them.
>
> We got one interesting proposal. It was about a long term project of
> making photos of one person. The project was very interesting, but it
> turned out that it's not suitable to be supported by Wikimedia, as
> well as the amount of needed money is so small, that I am able to fund
> it personally.
>
> However, that was not the end. That guy, an amateur photographer (with
> professional skills) is actually the top Serbian lector. He proofread
> the Orthography of Serbian language.
>
> He is also a lexicographer, working in Matica srpska [1].
>
> So, we met in my office. While drinking some alcohol, besides his own
> project, we were talking about the state of Serbian lexicography and
> culture in general.
>
> We were talking about Matica srpska, as well; about present financial
> state of the institution, which has money for salaries and the most
> important projects, but doesn't have for a number of projects.
>
> I had bold ideas, of course, but I was quite skeptical about rational
> possibility of cooperation between WMRS and Matica srpska. However, he
> convinced me that the president of MS is likely willing to cooperate
> and that we should talk about that.
>
> So he told me that he'll arrange the meeting with the president and
> that we should talk about that.
>
> Few weeks later I led WMRS delegation (our ED Mile and our program
> manager Ivana were in the delegation) to the initial talks with MS.
>
> I think we were talking two hours. And I am quite confident to tell
> you that on June 20th, 2014 happened one historical event, not just
> for Wikimedia Serbia, but also for Serbian culture and free knowledge.
>
> I wasn't able to talk about this till today, when we got formal letter
> from MS, which summarize our meeting and emphases their commitment to
> accessibility of knowledge to as much people as it's possible.
>
> If you are in Slavic culture in general, you should know what Matica
> srpska is. As the most of you are not, here is the story in short...
>
> MS is the oldest cultural and scientific institution in Serbia. They
> are the main lexicographical and encyclopedistic institution in
> Serbia. It isn't easily comparable with large cultures, but,
> basically, if we don't count independent institutions, 90% of
> dictionaries and the most important encyclopedias have been created
> inside of MS or with MS as the leader of the project.
>
> We share one important trait with the institutions like MS is. It's
> about long term goals. We want to start cooperation and develop it.
> So, we are starting with cooperation slowly. During the next year our
> goal is to liberate two dictionaries. One is ornithological, the other
> one covers dialects of Vojvodina.
>
> That's just the beginning, of course. Their editions are the main
> dictionaries of Serbian language and we'll discuss the next year about
> the steps toward liberating them. They are also in charge for creation
> of national encyclopedia, but it has its own Board and during the next
> months we should start talking with the Board, as well.
>
> The significance of this cooperation for Wikimedia is that we are at
> the beginning of the first close relations with one main national
> cultural institution, which focus is creating dictionaries and
> encyclopedias. They share our goals, as well as they want to cooperate
> with us.
>
> And it's not just about liberating content because we will help it
> financially. It's their commitment, as well. They want to share their
> content on Internet. With our (technological, licensing etc.) help,
> they will become the institution which shares their content by
> default, no matter if we are involved or not.
>
> I know that this story is not applicable in many cases. It's not
> rational to expect that the University of Oxford would do the same.
> However, I am sure that this story *is* applicable in many cultures of
> the similar size, like Serbian is.
>
> It is also important that the visibility of Wikimedia organizations
> all over the world is very important. You could get something very
> valuable if you show that you are friendly.
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matica_srpska
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] AFD survey

[Andy Mabbett]

On 16 July 2014 12:34, David Gerard  wrote:
> I would suggest that it doesn't become not a vote merely by not
> calling it a vote. I note all the closes that count "!votes" and how
> the not-voting pattern on a given AFD is frequently brought up at DRV.

Vote-counting is increasingly prevalent in template deletion
discussions (TfDs) on en.WP, too.

I raised my concerns there, in May:

   
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Templates_for_discussion#Closure_decisions

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] AFD survey

[Nicole Askin]

Perhaps Lane's involvement with RCOM would prevent submissions from going
unanswered for months - this is a huge roadblock to researchers who are
trying to do things ethically. On the other hand, if Lane were to accuse
other researchers of harming the community for personal gain, as he has
done off-list in this case, that too would be very problematic, IMO worse
than any survey of this type.
I would like to thank others for their feedback. Yes, we are aware of
NOTAVOTE - the terminology is a bit problematic, but we are trying to get
at the unique use of rationales that ideally constitutes the bulk of such
non-vote discussions.



> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 15:43:48 +0300
> From: "Amir E. Aharoni" 
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] AFD survey
> Message-ID:
>  84...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Good points, Lane. Such things were possibly discussed before, but it's the
> first time that I see it it spelled out like this.
>
> This approach should be advertised a bit somehow, so that the researchers
> know how to do it ethically and for everybody's benefit, and so that the
> experienced Wikipedians would know not to start answering such surveys.
>
>
> --
> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
> http://aharoni.wordpress.com
> ‪“We're living in pieces,
> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
>
>
> 2014-07-16 14:39 GMT+03:00 Lane Rasberry :
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I feel that this is an unethical research project and I have told the
> > researcher so. We exchanged several emails and were unable to understand
> > each other. I asked them to please have their university ethics board
> > contact me.
> >
> > I asked the researcher about RCOM and other things. This person said they
> > posted to RCOM, but "the Meta page states that submissions should receive
> > responses within 1-2 weeks, and yet our messages went unanswered. We have
> > institutional ethics approval, but that doesn't last indefinitely, and so
> > after receiving no response we opted to go ahead."
> >
> > I am not going to share more than this publicly, but in short, I talked
> > with the researcher to the limit of their interest and they feel that
> they
> > must proceed with the research.  Their oversight is at
> > 
> > Their RCOM page is at
> > <
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:The_Use_of_Rationales_in_Wikipedia_Articles_for_Deletion_Discussions_and_in_Group_Decision_Making
> > >
> >
> > My concern here, as with many surveys, is that the researcher greatly
> > values their time and assigns less value to Wikipedia community time, and
> > is comfortable asking for lots of volunteer time on the pretense of
> helping
> > our community. This kind of research is, in my opinion, not helpful to
> > Wikipedians because the questions make no sense due to having been
> designed
> > by an outsider, and additionally so many people have these same questions
> > and only want to target our most active and busiest and valuable
> > volunteers. Furthermore there is no compliance here with community values
> > in research. Bad surveys create "survey fatigue", in which volunteers are
> > later disinclined to participate in good and useful community-approved
> > research.
> >
> > If anyone sees research problems in the future I am interested in talking
> > about these things. I have been thinking of becoming more involved in
> > supporting RCOM for some time.
> >
> > The basic problem is that practically all researchers assume that the
> > number of highly active Wikipedians is huge, and therefore, they imagine
> no
> > problem for them to ask for any amount of volunteer time to be diverted
> > from Wikipedia to their personal and private collection of survey data.
> The
> > reality is that there are not more than hundreds or low thousands of
> > Wikipedians who are active to the extent they imagine. This survey is
> > targeting English AfD, where I imagine there are only low hundreds of at
> > most of continually active participants, and the reality may be much
> lower
> > participation than that.
> >
> > I asked this researcher to discontinue the survey pending a check on the
> > impact of it on the Wikipedia community. I said this because I feel they
> > are out of compliance with even the soft suggestions in research that are
> > available, and they know this.
> >
> > yours,
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 6:53 AM, Srikanth Ramakrishnan <
> > srik.r...@wikimedia.in> wrote:
> >
> > > If the people who have created this survey can fix the problems raised
> by
> > > Fae, I'd be happy to share this with several language Wikipedians in
> > India.
> > > I'm sure that at this point nobody would want to be part of it.
> > > On Jul 16, 2014 1:54 PM, "Tomasz Ganicz"  wrote:
> > >
> > > > In Polish Wikipedia there is no voting for deletion for around 3-4
> > > > years. There is discussion and then final decissio

Re: [Wikimedia-l] On historical event / WMRS Microgrants 2014

[Jon Davies]

Great work!


On 16 July 2014 16:31, Milos Rancic  wrote:

> I am finally able to share with you the biggest benefit of WMRS
> Microgrants projects for this year. It's about cooperation with one
> very old institution, and it was necessary to wait for their formal
> letter.
>
> But first about the side effects of the Microgrants project...
>
> When you are going outside and tell people that you are willing to
> support their projects, it could lead into interesting outcomes. It is
> important to understand possibilities which could be opened and catch
> them.
>
> We got one interesting proposal. It was about a long term project of
> making photos of one person. The project was very interesting, but it
> turned out that it's not suitable to be supported by Wikimedia, as
> well as the amount of needed money is so small, that I am able to fund
> it personally.
>
> However, that was not the end. That guy, an amateur photographer (with
> professional skills) is actually the top Serbian lector. He proofread
> the Orthography of Serbian language.
>
> He is also a lexicographer, working in Matica srpska [1].
>
> So, we met in my office. While drinking some alcohol, besides his own
> project, we were talking about the state of Serbian lexicography and
> culture in general.
>
> We were talking about Matica srpska, as well; about present financial
> state of the institution, which has money for salaries and the most
> important projects, but doesn't have for a number of projects.
>
> I had bold ideas, of course, but I was quite skeptical about rational
> possibility of cooperation between WMRS and Matica srpska. However, he
> convinced me that the president of MS is likely willing to cooperate
> and that we should talk about that.
>
> So he told me that he'll arrange the meeting with the president and
> that we should talk about that.
>
> Few weeks later I led WMRS delegation (our ED Mile and our program
> manager Ivana were in the delegation) to the initial talks with MS.
>
> I think we were talking two hours. And I am quite confident to tell
> you that on June 20th, 2014 happened one historical event, not just
> for Wikimedia Serbia, but also for Serbian culture and free knowledge.
>
> I wasn't able to talk about this till today, when we got formal letter
> from MS, which summarize our meeting and emphases their commitment to
> accessibility of knowledge to as much people as it's possible.
>
> If you are in Slavic culture in general, you should know what Matica
> srpska is. As the most of you are not, here is the story in short...
>
> MS is the oldest cultural and scientific institution in Serbia. They
> are the main lexicographical and encyclopedistic institution in
> Serbia. It isn't easily comparable with large cultures, but,
> basically, if we don't count independent institutions, 90% of
> dictionaries and the most important encyclopedias have been created
> inside of MS or with MS as the leader of the project.
>
> We share one important trait with the institutions like MS is. It's
> about long term goals. We want to start cooperation and develop it.
> So, we are starting with cooperation slowly. During the next year our
> goal is to liberate two dictionaries. One is ornithological, the other
> one covers dialects of Vojvodina.
>
> That's just the beginning, of course. Their editions are the main
> dictionaries of Serbian language and we'll discuss the next year about
> the steps toward liberating them. They are also in charge for creation
> of national encyclopedia, but it has its own Board and during the next
> months we should start talking with the Board, as well.
>
> The significance of this cooperation for Wikimedia is that we are at
> the beginning of the first close relations with one main national
> cultural institution, which focus is creating dictionaries and
> encyclopedias. They share our goals, as well as they want to cooperate
> with us.
>
> And it's not just about liberating content because we will help it
> financially. It's their commitment, as well. They want to share their
> content on Internet. With our (technological, licensing etc.) help,
> they will become the institution which shares their content by
> default, no matter if we are involved or not.
>
> I know that this story is not applicable in many cases. It's not
> rational to expect that the University of Oxford would do the same.
> However, I am sure that this story *is* applicable in many cultures of
> the similar size, like Serbian is.
>
> It is also important that the visibility of Wikimedia organizations
> all over the world is very important. You could get something very
> valuable if you show that you are friendly.
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matica_srpska
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 

[Wikimedia-l] On historical event / WMRS Microgrants 2014

[Milos Rancic]

I am finally able to share with you the biggest benefit of WMRS
Microgrants projects for this year. It's about cooperation with one
very old institution, and it was necessary to wait for their formal
letter.

But first about the side effects of the Microgrants project...

When you are going outside and tell people that you are willing to
support their projects, it could lead into interesting outcomes. It is
important to understand possibilities which could be opened and catch
them.

We got one interesting proposal. It was about a long term project of
making photos of one person. The project was very interesting, but it
turned out that it's not suitable to be supported by Wikimedia, as
well as the amount of needed money is so small, that I am able to fund
it personally.

However, that was not the end. That guy, an amateur photographer (with
professional skills) is actually the top Serbian lector. He proofread
the Orthography of Serbian language.

He is also a lexicographer, working in Matica srpska [1].

So, we met in my office. While drinking some alcohol, besides his own
project, we were talking about the state of Serbian lexicography and
culture in general.

We were talking about Matica srpska, as well; about present financial
state of the institution, which has money for salaries and the most
important projects, but doesn't have for a number of projects.

I had bold ideas, of course, but I was quite skeptical about rational
possibility of cooperation between WMRS and Matica srpska. However, he
convinced me that the president of MS is likely willing to cooperate
and that we should talk about that.

So he told me that he'll arrange the meeting with the president and
that we should talk about that.

Few weeks later I led WMRS delegation (our ED Mile and our program
manager Ivana were in the delegation) to the initial talks with MS.

I think we were talking two hours. And I am quite confident to tell
you that on June 20th, 2014 happened one historical event, not just
for Wikimedia Serbia, but also for Serbian culture and free knowledge.

I wasn't able to talk about this till today, when we got formal letter
from MS, which summarize our meeting and emphases their commitment to
accessibility of knowledge to as much people as it's possible.

If you are in Slavic culture in general, you should know what Matica
srpska is. As the most of you are not, here is the story in short...

MS is the oldest cultural and scientific institution in Serbia. They
are the main lexicographical and encyclopedistic institution in
Serbia. It isn't easily comparable with large cultures, but,
basically, if we don't count independent institutions, 90% of
dictionaries and the most important encyclopedias have been created
inside of MS or with MS as the leader of the project.

We share one important trait with the institutions like MS is. It's
about long term goals. We want to start cooperation and develop it.
So, we are starting with cooperation slowly. During the next year our
goal is to liberate two dictionaries. One is ornithological, the other
one covers dialects of Vojvodina.

That's just the beginning, of course. Their editions are the main
dictionaries of Serbian language and we'll discuss the next year about
the steps toward liberating them. They are also in charge for creation
of national encyclopedia, but it has its own Board and during the next
months we should start talking with the Board, as well.

The significance of this cooperation for Wikimedia is that we are at
the beginning of the first close relations with one main national
cultural institution, which focus is creating dictionaries and
encyclopedias. They share our goals, as well as they want to cooperate
with us.

And it's not just about liberating content because we will help it
financially. It's their commitment, as well. They want to share their
content on Internet. With our (technological, licensing etc.) help,
they will become the institution which shares their content by
default, no matter if we are involved or not.

I know that this story is not applicable in many cases. It's not
rational to expect that the University of Oxford would do the same.
However, I am sure that this story *is* applicable in many cultures of
the similar size, like Serbian is.

It is also important that the visibility of Wikimedia organizations
all over the world is very important. You could get something very
valuable if you show that you are friendly.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matica_srpska

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Lsjbot i Wall street jpournal and BBC world

[Ilario Valdelli]

I agree.

It may be a good solution to "patch" the losing of editors... if there is
no plan for community support.


On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Russavia 
wrote:

> Anders,
>
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Anders Wennersten
>  wrote:
>
> Whilst you are doing some good things with these bot-created articles,
> I do have some concerns.
>
> Mainly, the fact that there is no human intervention in the creation
> process.
>
> I have found myself having to remove, frankly speaking, useless
> galleries on some of the articles created by your bot.
>
> Take "Mexico" on Cebuano WP[1] which had a gallery made up of images
> from [[Category:Mexico]] (the country) on Commons. The Commonscat link
> on that article also links to the Commons category for the country. Or
> the Cebuano article for "Astraeus"[2] which had a gallery made up of
> images relating to Astraeus Airlines. The Commonscat link is also the
> airline, and the images were pulled from that article.
>
> What sort of quality control is occurring to ensure that this isn't
> widespreadthese are not the only examples I've had to remove
> imagery totally unrelated to the subject, and makes me question
> whether having a bot creating hundreds of thousands of stubbish
> articles is really the best way to go about content creation.
>
> Russavia
>
> [1]
> https://ceb.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexico_(mga_mananap)&oldid=42452802
> [2] https://ceb.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Astraeus&oldid=4367459
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Wikipedia: Ilario 
Facebook: Ilario Valdelli 
Twitter: Ilario Valdelli 
Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli 
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] AFD survey

[Marc A. Pelletier]

On 07/16/2014 07:44 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> AFAIK deletion has
> never been a vote by policy on en.wiki.

No, but it almost always devolves to a vote de facto.  Interestingly
enough, that particular question (did you close discussions by counting
show of hand vs evaluating the rationales) appears in the survey, which
shows that they are at least aware of the dichotomy.

-- Marc


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] AFD survey

[Amir E. Aharoni]

Good points, Lane. Such things were possibly discussed before, but it's the
first time that I see it it spelled out like this.

This approach should be advertised a bit somehow, so that the researchers
know how to do it ethically and for everybody's benefit, and so that the
experienced Wikipedians would know not to start answering such surveys.


--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬


2014-07-16 14:39 GMT+03:00 Lane Rasberry :

> Hello,
>
> I feel that this is an unethical research project and I have told the
> researcher so. We exchanged several emails and were unable to understand
> each other. I asked them to please have their university ethics board
> contact me.
>
> I asked the researcher about RCOM and other things. This person said they
> posted to RCOM, but "the Meta page states that submissions should receive
> responses within 1-2 weeks, and yet our messages went unanswered. We have
> institutional ethics approval, but that doesn't last indefinitely, and so
> after receiving no response we opted to go ahead."
>
> I am not going to share more than this publicly, but in short, I talked
> with the researcher to the limit of their interest and they feel that they
> must proceed with the research.  Their oversight is at
> 
> Their RCOM page is at
> <
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:The_Use_of_Rationales_in_Wikipedia_Articles_for_Deletion_Discussions_and_in_Group_Decision_Making
> >
>
> My concern here, as with many surveys, is that the researcher greatly
> values their time and assigns less value to Wikipedia community time, and
> is comfortable asking for lots of volunteer time on the pretense of helping
> our community. This kind of research is, in my opinion, not helpful to
> Wikipedians because the questions make no sense due to having been designed
> by an outsider, and additionally so many people have these same questions
> and only want to target our most active and busiest and valuable
> volunteers. Furthermore there is no compliance here with community values
> in research. Bad surveys create "survey fatigue", in which volunteers are
> later disinclined to participate in good and useful community-approved
> research.
>
> If anyone sees research problems in the future I am interested in talking
> about these things. I have been thinking of becoming more involved in
> supporting RCOM for some time.
>
> The basic problem is that practically all researchers assume that the
> number of highly active Wikipedians is huge, and therefore, they imagine no
> problem for them to ask for any amount of volunteer time to be diverted
> from Wikipedia to their personal and private collection of survey data. The
> reality is that there are not more than hundreds or low thousands of
> Wikipedians who are active to the extent they imagine. This survey is
> targeting English AfD, where I imagine there are only low hundreds of at
> most of continually active participants, and the reality may be much lower
> participation than that.
>
> I asked this researcher to discontinue the survey pending a check on the
> impact of it on the Wikipedia community. I said this because I feel they
> are out of compliance with even the soft suggestions in research that are
> available, and they know this.
>
> yours,
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 6:53 AM, Srikanth Ramakrishnan <
> srik.r...@wikimedia.in> wrote:
>
> > If the people who have created this survey can fix the problems raised by
> > Fae, I'd be happy to share this with several language Wikipedians in
> India.
> > I'm sure that at this point nobody would want to be part of it.
> > On Jul 16, 2014 1:54 PM, "Tomasz Ganicz"  wrote:
> >
> > > In Polish Wikipedia there is no voting for deletion for around 3-4
> > > years. There is discussion and then final decission is made by one of
> > > admins who regularly maintains the deletion process.
> > >
> > > 2014-07-16 10:20 GMT+02:00 Federico Leva (Nemo) :
> > > > Thanks. All questions were generic and about "Wikipedia", so I
> answered
> > > > with the Italian Wikipedia in mind. Also note that it.wiki is perhaps
> > > > the only wiki which switched deletions from voting to non-voting: the
> > > > experiment was already done, you only need to measure and interpret
> it.
> > > > :-) See
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-January/123334.html
> > > >
> > > > I had problems with two questions:
> > > > * "Are you concerned that somebody would change or remove your
> > > > rationale? Please choose the most applicable response." This question
> > > > assumes that removing a comment is bad; I would have answered "Yes
> when
> > > > appropriate per law or policy" but there was no such option.
> > > > * "Do you read the rationales in the discussion before making the
> final
> > > > decision?" This assumes that this is just a mat

Re: [Wikimedia-l] AFD survey

[Fæ]

On 16 July 2014 12:39, Lane Rasberry  wrote:
...
> I asked this researcher to discontinue the survey pending a check on the
> impact of it on the Wikipedia community. I said this because I feel they
> are out of compliance with even the soft suggestions in research that are
> available, and they know this.

Good point. If anyone wanted to research deletion discussion patterns
and outcomes on the English Wikipedia or other projects, I could knock
out a nice analysis using a little passive but intelligent bot work
depending on their requirements. I'm easy to find.

I'm pretty sure this would be a lot cheaper in volunteer time or
research time than creating surveys to answer very similar questions,
particularly if the resulting report were freely published so that
volunteers could give their "subjective value responses" to that
instead.

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] AFD survey

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

David Gerard, 16/07/2014 13:34:
> I would suggest that it doesn't become not a vote merely by not
> calling it a vote. I note all the closes that count "!votes" and how
> the not-voting pattern on a given AFD is frequently brought up at DRV.

Sure, but calling it a vote makes it a vote. If it's explicitly a vote
by policy, then there won't be such complaints. :-) AFAIK deletion has
never been a vote by policy on en.wiki.

Nemo

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] AFD survey

[Lane Rasberry]

Hello,

I feel that this is an unethical research project and I have told the
researcher so. We exchanged several emails and were unable to understand
each other. I asked them to please have their university ethics board
contact me.

I asked the researcher about RCOM and other things. This person said they
posted to RCOM, but "the Meta page states that submissions should receive
responses within 1-2 weeks, and yet our messages went unanswered. We have
institutional ethics approval, but that doesn't last indefinitely, and so
after receiving no response we opted to go ahead."

I am not going to share more than this publicly, but in short, I talked
with the researcher to the limit of their interest and they feel that they
must proceed with the research.  Their oversight is at

Their RCOM page is at
<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:The_Use_of_Rationales_in_Wikipedia_Articles_for_Deletion_Discussions_and_in_Group_Decision_Making
>

My concern here, as with many surveys, is that the researcher greatly
values their time and assigns less value to Wikipedia community time, and
is comfortable asking for lots of volunteer time on the pretense of helping
our community. This kind of research is, in my opinion, not helpful to
Wikipedians because the questions make no sense due to having been designed
by an outsider, and additionally so many people have these same questions
and only want to target our most active and busiest and valuable
volunteers. Furthermore there is no compliance here with community values
in research. Bad surveys create "survey fatigue", in which volunteers are
later disinclined to participate in good and useful community-approved
research.

If anyone sees research problems in the future I am interested in talking
about these things. I have been thinking of becoming more involved in
supporting RCOM for some time.

The basic problem is that practically all researchers assume that the
number of highly active Wikipedians is huge, and therefore, they imagine no
problem for them to ask for any amount of volunteer time to be diverted
from Wikipedia to their personal and private collection of survey data. The
reality is that there are not more than hundreds or low thousands of
Wikipedians who are active to the extent they imagine. This survey is
targeting English AfD, where I imagine there are only low hundreds of at
most of continually active participants, and the reality may be much lower
participation than that.

I asked this researcher to discontinue the survey pending a check on the
impact of it on the Wikipedia community. I said this because I feel they
are out of compliance with even the soft suggestions in research that are
available, and they know this.

yours,


On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 6:53 AM, Srikanth Ramakrishnan <
srik.r...@wikimedia.in> wrote:

> If the people who have created this survey can fix the problems raised by
> Fae, I'd be happy to share this with several language Wikipedians in India.
> I'm sure that at this point nobody would want to be part of it.
> On Jul 16, 2014 1:54 PM, "Tomasz Ganicz"  wrote:
>
> > In Polish Wikipedia there is no voting for deletion for around 3-4
> > years. There is discussion and then final decission is made by one of
> > admins who regularly maintains the deletion process.
> >
> > 2014-07-16 10:20 GMT+02:00 Federico Leva (Nemo) :
> > > Thanks. All questions were generic and about "Wikipedia", so I answered
> > > with the Italian Wikipedia in mind. Also note that it.wiki is perhaps
> > > the only wiki which switched deletions from voting to non-voting: the
> > > experiment was already done, you only need to measure and interpret it.
> > > :-) See
> > >
> >
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-January/123334.html
> > >
> > > I had problems with two questions:
> > > * "Are you concerned that somebody would change or remove your
> > > rationale? Please choose the most applicable response." This question
> > > assumes that removing a comment is bad; I would have answered "Yes when
> > > appropriate per law or policy" but there was no such option.
> > > * "Do you read the rationales in the discussion before making the final
> > > decision?" This assumes that this is just a matter of personal taste;
> > > sometimes policy and process requires it, sometimes not. (For instance
> > > in the classic it.wiki deletion process, but certainly also in some
> > > specific sub-process triggers on en.wiki and others.)
> > >
> > > Nemo
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
> > http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
> > http://

Re: [Wikimedia-l] AFD survey

[David Gerard]

I would suggest that it doesn't become not a vote merely by not
calling it a vote. I note all the closes that count "!votes" and how
the not-voting pattern on a given AFD is frequently brought up at DRV.

On 16 July 2014 12:25, Todd Allen  wrote:
> English hasn't used voting for a long time either. AfD discussions are
> closed based on strength of argument and compliance with policy.
> On Jul 16, 2014 2:24 AM, "Tomasz Ganicz"  wrote:
>
>> In Polish Wikipedia there is no voting for deletion for around 3-4
>> years. There is discussion and then final decission is made by one of
>> admins who regularly maintains the deletion process.
>>
>> 2014-07-16 10:20 GMT+02:00 Federico Leva (Nemo) :
>> > Thanks. All questions were generic and about "Wikipedia", so I answered
>> > with the Italian Wikipedia in mind. Also note that it.wiki is perhaps
>> > the only wiki which switched deletions from voting to non-voting: the
>> > experiment was already done, you only need to measure and interpret it.
>> > :-) See
>> >
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-January/123334.html
>> >
>> > I had problems with two questions:
>> > * "Are you concerned that somebody would change or remove your
>> > rationale? Please choose the most applicable response." This question
>> > assumes that removing a comment is bad; I would have answered "Yes when
>> > appropriate per law or policy" but there was no such option.
>> > * "Do you read the rationales in the discussion before making the final
>> > decision?" This assumes that this is just a matter of personal taste;
>> > sometimes policy and process requires it, sometimes not. (For instance
>> > in the classic it.wiki deletion process, but certainly also in some
>> > specific sub-process triggers on en.wiki and others.)
>> >
>> > Nemo
>> >
>> > ___
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
>> http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
>> http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
>> http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29&title=tomasz-ganicz
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Lsjbot i Wall street jpournal and BBC world

[Russavia]

Anders,

On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Anders Wennersten
 wrote:

Whilst you are doing some good things with these bot-created articles,
I do have some concerns.

Mainly, the fact that there is no human intervention in the creation process.

I have found myself having to remove, frankly speaking, useless
galleries on some of the articles created by your bot.

Take "Mexico" on Cebuano WP[1] which had a gallery made up of images
from [[Category:Mexico]] (the country) on Commons. The Commonscat link
on that article also links to the Commons category for the country. Or
the Cebuano article for "Astraeus"[2] which had a gallery made up of
images relating to Astraeus Airlines. The Commonscat link is also the
airline, and the images were pulled from that article.

What sort of quality control is occurring to ensure that this isn't
widespreadthese are not the only examples I've had to remove
imagery totally unrelated to the subject, and makes me question
whether having a bot creating hundreds of thousands of stubbish
articles is really the best way to go about content creation.

Russavia

[1] 
https://ceb.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexico_(mga_mananap)&oldid=42452802
[2] https://ceb.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Astraeus&oldid=4367459

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] AFD survey

[Todd Allen]

English hasn't used voting for a long time either. AfD discussions are
closed based on strength of argument and compliance with policy.
On Jul 16, 2014 2:24 AM, "Tomasz Ganicz"  wrote:

> In Polish Wikipedia there is no voting for deletion for around 3-4
> years. There is discussion and then final decission is made by one of
> admins who regularly maintains the deletion process.
>
> 2014-07-16 10:20 GMT+02:00 Federico Leva (Nemo) :
> > Thanks. All questions were generic and about "Wikipedia", so I answered
> > with the Italian Wikipedia in mind. Also note that it.wiki is perhaps
> > the only wiki which switched deletions from voting to non-voting: the
> > experiment was already done, you only need to measure and interpret it.
> > :-) See
> >
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-January/123334.html
> >
> > I had problems with two questions:
> > * "Are you concerned that somebody would change or remove your
> > rationale? Please choose the most applicable response." This question
> > assumes that removing a comment is bad; I would have answered "Yes when
> > appropriate per law or policy" but there was no such option.
> > * "Do you read the rationales in the discussion before making the final
> > decision?" This assumes that this is just a matter of personal taste;
> > sometimes policy and process requires it, sometimes not. (For instance
> > in the classic it.wiki deletion process, but certainly also in some
> > specific sub-process triggers on en.wiki and others.)
> >
> > Nemo
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
>
>
> --
> Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
> http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
> http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
> http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29&title=tomasz-ganicz
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Lsjbot i Wall street jpournal and BBC world

[Anders Wennersten]

Wall Street Journal (online) [1] had two days ago a long article on 
Lsjbot, yesterday being their fourth most read article.


it was followed up yesterday by articles in media in Brazil, Poland, 
(arabian paper), France, Australia Huffington Post etc


It will now in a few hours time be an interview in BBC World New with 
Sverker (Lsjbot owner) where also Jimmy Wales will participate


Anders
Lsbot has for this round today generated over 100 000 articles on plant 
species, and progessing with around 1 a day An example [2]


[1] 
http://online.wsj.com/articles/for-this-author-10-000-wikipedia-articles-is-a-good-days-work-1405305001 



[2] https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyathea_dregei 


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] AFD survey

[Srikanth Ramakrishnan]

If the people who have created this survey can fix the problems raised by
Fae, I'd be happy to share this with several language Wikipedians in India.
I'm sure that at this point nobody would want to be part of it.
On Jul 16, 2014 1:54 PM, "Tomasz Ganicz"  wrote:

> In Polish Wikipedia there is no voting for deletion for around 3-4
> years. There is discussion and then final decission is made by one of
> admins who regularly maintains the deletion process.
>
> 2014-07-16 10:20 GMT+02:00 Federico Leva (Nemo) :
> > Thanks. All questions were generic and about "Wikipedia", so I answered
> > with the Italian Wikipedia in mind. Also note that it.wiki is perhaps
> > the only wiki which switched deletions from voting to non-voting: the
> > experiment was already done, you only need to measure and interpret it.
> > :-) See
> >
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-January/123334.html
> >
> > I had problems with two questions:
> > * "Are you concerned that somebody would change or remove your
> > rationale? Please choose the most applicable response." This question
> > assumes that removing a comment is bad; I would have answered "Yes when
> > appropriate per law or policy" but there was no such option.
> > * "Do you read the rationales in the discussion before making the final
> > decision?" This assumes that this is just a matter of personal taste;
> > sometimes policy and process requires it, sometimes not. (For instance
> > in the classic it.wiki deletion process, but certainly also in some
> > specific sub-process triggers on en.wiki and others.)
> >
> > Nemo
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
>
>
> --
> Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
> http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
> http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
> http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29&title=tomasz-ganicz
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] AFD survey

[Tomasz Ganicz]

In Polish Wikipedia there is no voting for deletion for around 3-4
years. There is discussion and then final decission is made by one of
admins who regularly maintains the deletion process.

2014-07-16 10:20 GMT+02:00 Federico Leva (Nemo) :
> Thanks. All questions were generic and about "Wikipedia", so I answered
> with the Italian Wikipedia in mind. Also note that it.wiki is perhaps
> the only wiki which switched deletions from voting to non-voting: the
> experiment was already done, you only need to measure and interpret it.
> :-) See
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-January/123334.html
>
> I had problems with two questions:
> * "Are you concerned that somebody would change or remove your
> rationale? Please choose the most applicable response." This question
> assumes that removing a comment is bad; I would have answered "Yes when
> appropriate per law or policy" but there was no such option.
> * "Do you read the rationales in the discussion before making the final
> decision?" This assumes that this is just a matter of personal taste;
> sometimes policy and process requires it, sometimes not. (For instance
> in the classic it.wiki deletion process, but certainly also in some
> specific sub-process triggers on en.wiki and others.)
>
> Nemo
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 



-- 
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29&title=tomasz-ganicz

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] AFD survey

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Thanks. All questions were generic and about "Wikipedia", so I answered
with the Italian Wikipedia in mind. Also note that it.wiki is perhaps
the only wiki which switched deletions from voting to non-voting: the
experiment was already done, you only need to measure and interpret it.
:-) See
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-January/123334.html

I had problems with two questions:
* "Are you concerned that somebody would change or remove your
rationale? Please choose the most applicable response." This question
assumes that removing a comment is bad; I would have answered "Yes when
appropriate per law or policy" but there was no such option.
* "Do you read the rationales in the discussion before making the final
decision?" This assumes that this is just a matter of personal taste;
sometimes policy and process requires it, sometimes not. (For instance
in the classic it.wiki deletion process, but certainly also in some
specific sub-process triggers on en.wiki and others.)

Nemo

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] AFD survey

[Fæ]

Dear UWO Wikipedia Research Team,

Your survey does not appear to have been approved by the Wikimedia
Research Committee (RCom). You can find contact details at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_Committee.

Due to concerns with regard to privacy, such as recording their IP
address against statements of their Wikipedia activities, Wikimedians
are not encouraged to participate in unapproved surveys.

I doubt that many Wikipedians would want to separately find and
analyse the UWO Code of Conduct to check what is tracked or not, and
they would need to do this before opening the fluidsurveys.com
website. I note that this website is not apparently owned by the UWO,
but is a private site that is unlikely to be legally bound by UWO
codes of conduct.

Fae

On 16/07/2014, Thyge  wrote:
> the http:// part has been left out.
> Correct link is
>
> http://fluidsurveys.com/s/WikipediaSurvey/
>
> Regards
> Sir48/Thyge
>
>
>
> 2014-07-16 8:29 GMT+02:00 Peter Southwood :
>
>> Link does not work.
>> Cheers,
>> Peter
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:
>> wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askin
>> Sent: 16 July 2014 04:00 AM
>> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] AFD survey
>>
>> We are looking for Wikipedians to participate in a survey. The survey is
>> designed to help us understand group decision-making and Wikipedia’s
>> Articles for Deletion (AfD) process. The research is being carried out
>> under the terms of the University of Western Ontario - Code of Conduct; it
>> will not lead to any sales follow up; no individual (or organization) will
>> be identified in our reporting.
>>
>> If you are an adult Wikipedian, we would be grateful if you could spare
>> approximately 10-15 minutes to complete this survey.
>>
>> As a token of our gratitude, for each completed survey we will make a
>> charitable donation of CAD$2 to the Wikimedia Foundation. If you have any
>> questions, please contact Lu Xiao at lxiao24 (at) uwo.ca.
>>
>> To start the survey please click ONCE on the link below: http://
>> fluidsurveys.com/s/WikipediaSurvey/
>>
>> Please try to complete the survey by August 1, 2014.
>>
>> Thank you very much for your time, we really value your input.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> UWO Wikipedia Research Team
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
>> -
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2014.0.4716 / Virus Database: 3986/7858 - Release Date: 07/15/14
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 


-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] AFD survey

[Thyge]

the http:// part has been left out.
Correct link is

http://fluidsurveys.com/s/WikipediaSurvey/

Regards
Sir48/Thyge



2014-07-16 8:29 GMT+02:00 Peter Southwood :

> Link does not work.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:
> wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askin
> Sent: 16 July 2014 04:00 AM
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] AFD survey
>
> We are looking for Wikipedians to participate in a survey. The survey is
> designed to help us understand group decision-making and Wikipedia’s
> Articles for Deletion (AfD) process. The research is being carried out
> under the terms of the University of Western Ontario - Code of Conduct; it
> will not lead to any sales follow up; no individual (or organization) will
> be identified in our reporting.
>
> If you are an adult Wikipedian, we would be grateful if you could spare
> approximately 10-15 minutes to complete this survey.
>
> As a token of our gratitude, for each completed survey we will make a
> charitable donation of CAD$2 to the Wikimedia Foundation. If you have any
> questions, please contact Lu Xiao at lxiao24 (at) uwo.ca.
>
> To start the survey please click ONCE on the link below: http://
> fluidsurveys.com/s/WikipediaSurvey/
>
> Please try to complete the survey by August 1, 2014.
>
> Thank you very much for your time, we really value your input.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> UWO Wikipedia Research Team
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> -
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2014.0.4716 / Virus Database: 3986/7858 - Release Date: 07/15/14
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,