Re: [Wikimedia-l] Princess of Asturias prize streaming now

[Leila Zia]

congratulations, everyone, for the amazing work you've done for bringing
Wikipedia where it is today! It's amazing to take a moment and look back on
all what's achieved! :-)

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Jane Darnell  wrote:

> Wow thanks for the link - but wait, bagpipes?
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Salvador A 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi community
> >
> > I share with you the link to see (just now) the ceremony of the Princess
> of
> > Asturias prize giving, to see it online. There's an option to hear the
> > audio in English:
> >
> > http://www.rtve.es/noticias/premios-princesa-asturias/directo/
> >
> > Congratulations to all!
> >
> > Enjoy!
> >
> > --
> > *Salvador Alcántar*
> > *@salvador_alc*
> > ___
> > 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] Good news for Wikimedians in San Francisco!

[Leila Zia]

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 4:09 PM, James Alexander 
wrote:

> This is spectacular news Romaine! Thank you for finding it!
>

+1. Roan Kattouw, our official supplier, can finally have a relief. ;-)
Before that, we need a true Dutch person to approve Stroopie's originality
though.

Leila


>
> BCCing the Wikimedia-sf list so that they see it ;) [though I imagine I'll
> have to clear it through given BCC]
>
> James Alexander
> Manager
> Trust & Safety
> Wikimedia Foundation
> (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
>
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Romaine Wiki 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > As you of course know, stroopwafels are official wikifood. See:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Stroopwafel_Addicts
> >
> > As Dutch we are aware of the shortage of this original typical wikifood
> in
> > other parts of the world, so we travel around the world with many
> packages
> > each year at Wikimania and elsewhere. However, it is always more tasty to
> > eat fresh stroopwafels, so the Dutch inspire a lot of people around the
> > world to sell them.
> >
> > Of course everyone has a high need as Wikipedian/Wikimedian, but as the
> > headquarters of the Wikimedia movement is in San Francisco, the supply is
> > there the most urgent.
> >
> > Today I learned that Wikimedia people in San Francisco do not have to bit
> > on their teeth or tongue, but can now buy fresh stroopwafels!
> > See: http://www.stroopiegourmet.com/
> >
> > Finally San Francisco is saved from an anarchy because of a huge shortage
> > of stroopwafels.
> >
> > I hope that the San Francisco people enjoy the official
> > Wikipedia/Wikimedia wikifood as part of their daily (!) local cuisine!
> >
> > Romaine
> >
> ___
> 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] Next step in the development

[Leila Zia]

Hi Risker,

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Risker  wrote:

> We do not expect anyone to add information to any other
> project when they create content on the project of their choice.


I'm thinking the Insert Media option in VE: there, we are giving the editor
the option to upload Media to the article which in reality means uploading
Media to Commons if I'm not missing something. The workflow is very smooth,
and the Wikipedia editor does not need to know about Commons to follow the
flow.

Leila


> On 29 October 2015 at 16:08, Romaine Wiki  wrote:
>
> > That is comparing it with wrong examples that are not relevant here.
> > On Wikipedia we have the guideline that articles an categories should be
> > added to Wikidata, that originates back to the phase that only manual
> > interwikis existed.
> >
> > And we have already received complaints why users do not get a message
> > after they created a category/article to add it to Wikidata.
> >
> > Further I propose this only for (logged in) users, and perhaps further
> > settings are possible.
> >
> > At the moment the largest workload is coming from articles that are not
> > added to Wikidata. Some users produce five articles a day, all not added
> to
> > Wikidata, while the articles are fine. In two days we have about 100 new
> > articles on nl-wiki, all not added to Wikidata. This is just one wiki,
> and
> > a huge workload to get them added properly.
> >
> > Romaine
> >
> >
> > 2015-10-29 20:46 GMT+01:00 Risker :
> >
> > > Whatever happened to "Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit"?
> > >
> > > This is adding a layer of complexity and expectation that I don't
> really
> > > feel comfortable with.  We don't expect people to add images to Commons
> > > when they write an article.  We don't expect people to include
> > definitions
> > > in Wiktionary when they are using a word.  We don't expect people to be
> > > adding material to Wikisource or add quotes to Wikiquote.  For that
> > matter,
> > > we don't expect people to write Wikipedia articles about what they
> review
> > > on wikisource, or about images they add to Commons, or quotes they add
> to
> > > Wikiquote.  So why would we set up any kind of expectation that people
> > > would add "data" to Wikidata?
> > >
> > > I also am concerned that people will add a new article that, bluntly
> put,
> > > isn't going to last more than an hour...get these messages, and add
> junk
> > > data to Wikidata.  Wikidatians are working hard to add referencing and
> > > improve what is there already, but it's a huge labour and we shouldn't
> be
> > > adding to their mountain of work unnecessarily.
> > >
> > > Risker/Anne
> > >
> > > On 29 October 2015 at 14:37, Romaine Wiki 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > I think it is time for the next step in the Wikidata development: a
> > > better
> > > > integration in Wikipedia and her sisterprojects.
> > > >
> > > > Every day thousands of articles are created, and many of those are
> not
> > > > added to Wikidata, even while often an item about this subject
> exists.
> > > > Users forget to add a newly created article to Wikidata as there is
> no
> > > > stimulus at all. The next step in Wikidata development is that after
> > the
> > > > creation of an article, users get a message (pop-up, or screen, etc)
> in
> > > > what they are asked to add the article/category to Wikidata. In the
> > first
> > > > stage this can be just a pop-up with a message. But it would be
> better
> > if
> > > > this can be a message + some help to do this, so that users can stay
> in
> > > > Wikipedia (or another project), without having to go to Wikidata.
> > > >
> > > > A further step that can be developed after is the suggestion of
> > > properties
> > > > (if missing), like instance of, and based on this entry further
> > > properties.
> > > >
> > > > This will make sure that there is a better integration of Wikipedia
> and
> > > her
> > > > sister projects with Wikidata through this workflow.
> > > >
> > > > For this I created a Phabricator task at:
> > > > https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T117070
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > > Romaine
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > <
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@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: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect is gone

[Leila Zia]

great news, indeed!

Thanks to everyone involved during the different stages of this process for
making this happen. :-)

Leila

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Asaf Bartov  wrote:

> \o/
>
>A.
>
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 10:20 AM, Dan Garry  wrote:
>
> > On 5 November 2015 at 10:14, Laurentius 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Just to understand, is it still present in MediaWiki but not active on
> > > Wikimedia sites or it not in the MediaWiki code anymore?
> > >
> >
> > There was a patch merged which removed the protection level completely:
> > https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/251286/
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > --
> > Dan Garry
> > Lead Product Manager, Discovery
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Asaf Bartov
> Wikimedia Foundation 
>
> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
> https://donate.wikimedia.org
> ___
> 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] Q1 Fundraising Update

[Leila Zia]

Hi Lodewijk,

On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Lodewijk 
wrote:

>
> I'm a little confused though, so I hope you (or someone else) can clarify
> something for me: what does a campaign look like these days? Because I'm
> seeing banners all year round (I live in the Netherlands, maybe that makes
> a difference), every now and then. But I also understood that the campaigns
> nowadays are more sophisticated, and don't show the banner 100% any longer,
> but only once per IP/computer/person?
>

The Fundraising team can better address this but since we're in a long
weekend, I'll say as much as I know:
There are different kinds of campaigns, ones that go constantly in a
country for a period of time, those that go on for a sample of the traffic
in a country for a specific period of time. The team is trying to spread
the effort across the year so all our eggs are not in one basket which is
December. :-)

In terms of frequency, I think the team experiments with different banner
frequencies. We know that if you see the banner more than 5 times, banner
fatigue will take over. So, I think we are mostly testing with showing
banners less than 5 times. For the December campaign in the US last year,
if I remember correctly, you would see it once big, and then after that as
a little bar on top of the page until you would close it or donate.

Leila


> Thanks,
>
> Lodewijk
>
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 10:58 PM, Megan Hernandez  >
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > There's a new Q1 fundraising update on meta
> >  and
> > posted here as well.
> >
> > The Wikimedia Foundation has just wrapped up the first quarter of the
> > 2015-16 fiscal year. Over these past three months, the fundraising team
> has
> > been running ran campaigns in Japan, Brazil, Malaysia, South Africa,
> > Belgium and Luxembourg and prepared for the upcoming year-end English
> > fundraising campaign. The online fundraising team missed the $6 million
> > goal for the quarter due to postponing the Italy fundraiser to October to
> > support the Wiki Loves Monuments campaign. We raised roughly $5.7 million
> > in the first quarter of the year and plan to make up for the loss in the
> > next quarter. The 2014-15 fiscal year fundraising report
> >  was
> > also posted in this quarter. If you haven’t read it yet, please do check
> > out the report for a wealth of information on the last fiscal year.
> >
> > The team has used this first quarter to test a wide variety of brand new
> > banners. From images, to banners highlighting photos from Commons, and
> > different messages, we’ve found a few new ways to share the fundraising
> > message with Wikipedia readers. With updated designs, we’ve ended the
> > quarter with a banner that performs roughly 20% better than the best-
> > performing banner from last quarter. Better performing banners are
> required
> > to raise a higher budget with declining traffic. We’ll continue testing
> new
> > banners into the next quarter and sharing highlights as we go.
> >
> > The banner message has also been updated with suggestions from the
> > Wikimedia community. Thank you to everyone who has suggested improvements
> > so far! We have changed “We survive on donations averaging about $15” to
> > “We are sustained by donations averaging about $15.” We’ve also changed
> > “Please help us end the fundraiser and get back to improving Wikipedia”
> to
> > “Please help us end the fundraiser and improve Wikipedia.” These message
> > edits did not positively or negatively affect donations and were made in
> > response to community feedback. In the past, we have also relied on
> > community feedback to improve our campaigns. In the last year, community
> > feedback has led to improvements to the usability of the close X icon
> and a
> > new line to highlight the editing community, “Wikipedia is written by a
> > community of volunteers with a passion for sharing the world’s
> knowledge.”
> > All of these community suggestions remain in the banner. Another sentence
> > that was briefly tested on a small percentage of users about a year ago
> > that received negative community feedback was “If everyone reading this
> > gave $3, we could keep it online and ad-free another year.” We did not
> end
> > up using that sentence for the campaign and we commit to not using it in
> > any future campaign. In the next quarter, we are planning many more
> message
> > tests -- with both brand new ideas as well as smaller tweaks to the
> > existing text. If you have an idea to test, please share on the 2015-16
> > test ideas page
> > .
> > Thanks again to everyone who has shared ideas so far.
> >
> > This upcoming quarter will be our biggest of the year with campaigns in
> > Italy, France, the US, UK, Canada, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Q1 Fundraising Update

[Leila Zia]

t; > the
> > > most part -- because the same valid points get made over and over
> again,
> > > and the same *AWFUL* errors are made year after year in the
> fund-raising
> > > campaign.
> > >
> > > Leila's post here is heartening, and I'm glad that somebody has the
> > energy
> > > to articulate the concerns so well. I, myself, do not; I have simply
> lost
> > > faith in the integrity of the Wikimedia Foundation's fund-raising
> > > operation. I am, honestly, ashamed to tell people that I used to work
> in
> > > the fund-raising department there (though I believe the work we did was
> > > valuable).
> > >
> > > I recently heard from a high-ranking executive at a software company.
> She
> > > told me that she had given money to the Wikimedia Foundation, and then
> > > looked into the WMF's budget, and the messages in the campaign she had
> > > responded to. The word she used to describe her feeling was
> "mortified."
> > > She had considered asking for her money back, but had decided against
> it.
> > >
> > > Fortunately, she was sophisticated enough not apply her negative
> feelings
> > > to Wikipedia, but rather to the Wikimedia Foundation. But can the WMF
> > > afford to assume that will always be the case?
> > >
> > > Apparently, the thinking thus far is, "yes."
> > >
> > > -Pete
> > > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Leila Zia <le...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi Megan,
> > >>
> > >> Thank you for the update and all the hard work the team has done
> during
> > >> Q1.
> > >> My comments below.
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Megan Hernandez <
> > mhernan...@wikimedia.org
> > >> >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> > The team has used this first quarter to test a wide variety of brand
> > new
> > >> > banners. From images, to banners highlighting photos from Commons,
> and
> > >> > different messages, we’ve found a few new ways to share the
> > fundraising
> > >> > message with Wikipedia readers. With updated designs, we’ve ended
> the
> > >> > quarter with a banner that performs roughly 20% better than the
> best-
> > >> > performing banner from last quarter.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I saw that banner and I want to do all I can to help you not use it
> even
> > >> if
> > >> it performs 20% better. I put my story in p.s. so it's easier to skip
> > for
> > >> whoever chooses to skip. This is a true story. :-\
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> > Better performing banners are required
> > >> > to raise a higher budget with declining traffic. We’ll continue
> > testing
> > >> new
> > >> > banners into the next quarter and sharing highlights as we go.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> I've said this couple of times in the past through different channels
> > >> (sorry to those of you who have heard this before) but I think it's
> key
> > to
> > >> repeat it here just so we are all clear about what we know and what we
> > >> don't know.
> > >>
> > >> We know that our pageviews are not growing globally (depending on how
> > you
> > >> look at the trend and predictions, they are going down with a slow
> slope
> > >> or
> > >> are almost flat, neither case is good.).
> > >>
> > >> We also know that a higher budget means more work for Furndraising to
> > meet
> > >> the budget.
> > >>
> > >> We do not know the relation between the decline in pageviews and our
> > >> ability to raise money, we do not have research evidence for the above
> > >> statement given the data we have, so I highly encourage all of us not
> to
> > >> repeat this statement (even though it sounds very intuitive) until we
> > show
> > >> such evidence because the more we say it, the more we believe it.
> Ellery
> > >> explains what we know and don't know about this specific topic when I
> > ask
> > >> him a question about this in Metrics Meeting in April 2015. That
> > >> discussion
> > >> is recorded starting minute 37, second 38 here
> > >> <
> >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Q1 Fundraising Update

[Leila Zia]

Hi Megan,

Thank you for the update and all the hard work the team has done during Q1.
My comments below.

On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Megan Hernandez 
wrote:


> The team has used this first quarter to test a wide variety of brand new
> banners. From images, to banners highlighting photos from Commons, and
> different messages, we’ve found a few new ways to share the fundraising
> message with Wikipedia readers. With updated designs, we’ve ended the
> quarter with a banner that performs roughly 20% better than the best-
> performing banner from last quarter.


I saw that banner and I want to do all I can to help you not use it even if
it performs 20% better. I put my story in p.s. so it's easier to skip for
whoever chooses to skip. This is a true story. :-\


> Better performing banners are required
> to raise a higher budget with declining traffic. We’ll continue testing new
> banners into the next quarter and sharing highlights as we go.
>

I've said this couple of times in the past through different channels
(sorry to those of you who have heard this before) but I think it's key to
repeat it here just so we are all clear about what we know and what we
don't know.

We know that our pageviews are not growing globally (depending on how you
look at the trend and predictions, they are going down with a slow slope or
are almost flat, neither case is good.).

We also know that a higher budget means more work for Furndraising to meet
the budget.

We do not know the relation between the decline in pageviews and our
ability to raise money, we do not have research evidence for the above
statement given the data we have, so I highly encourage all of us not to
repeat this statement (even though it sounds very intuitive) until we show
such evidence because the more we say it, the more we believe it. Ellery
explains what we know and don't know about this specific topic when I ask
him a question about this in Metrics Meeting in April 2015. That discussion
is recorded starting minute 37, second 38 here

.

Best,
Leila

p.s. Here is the story:
I open my laptop at 5:30am to check few definitions on Wikipedia for an
upcoming early morning meeting. The room is dark and the only source of
light is my laptop, I go to Wikipedia and I see that banner
.
I'm still sleepy, and probably my mind is not functioning the way it
normally does, nevertheless, here is what comes to my mind: I have a sudden
feeling of fear. I see a very black background, and I think someone very
important has died. I look a bit more, and I see some red colors, then I
think something in the order of SOPA has happened. I'm getting quite
nervous. I look at the text, but it's too long for me to parse it at that
moment with the thoughts I have in the background. I look more at the
background, I see some orange colors, some yellow colors, and a little
human circled, I first think that whole color combination is a flame (red,
orange, yellow, and the semi shape of a flame), then I think someone is
jailed/executed. My eyes finally manage to see the right-hand-side of the
page, and I see there are dollar signs and numbers. I sigh in relief, and
then I get really upset (though I manage to pass that stage soon). Now, if
I was not involved in the movement, I'm not sure if I would pay or not
(maybe I would) seeing that banner, but because I'm in the Movement, I got
really sad seeing myself going through that experience because I know more.
I also acknowledge that different people have different backgrounds and
experiences in life. What I see as a sign of death and war, may not be a
signal for many other people (though the color black is almost universally
used for signalling death), and I acknowledge that you cannot accommodate
everyone. But please be aware, some people get really scared seeing this
kind of banner.

I said the story above, but I also want to say that I understand the
pressure on you. I've said it here

(and btw, huge thanks for being open to suggestions :-), and I'm saying it
here as well: I'm happy to help us to fix such an experience for our users.
Please let me know if you're open to test new designs. I'm more than happy
to help you for some time for us to bring in more designers and community
members into this conversation. I'm sure we can do this.

>
> --
>
> Megan Hernandez
>
> Director of Online Fundraising
> Wikimedia Foundation
> ___
> 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] Wikimedia websites is not accessible almost everywhere in Iran

[Leila Zia]

Hi Amir,

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Amir Ladsgroup 
wrote:

> It had started with Wikimedia Commons and then upload.wikimedia.org (so no
> images) and now Persian Wikinews


What error do you get when you try to upload a picture? If you share couple
of screen-shots, those can help, too.

Re Wikinews, can you get to Wikinews and the images inside articles don't
get uploaded or you cannot get to Wikinews at all? If the latter, what is
the error you're getting?


> and I just realized except a few number of
> ISPs all WM websites are blocked everywhere. Obviously analytics can give
> more details.
>

There is an effort to collect more information about which ISPs work and
which ones don't (note that in some ISPs, the bad_connection_error happens
only at certain times during the day so you may want to check the ISPs
you're checking in different times of the day if that is the error you
see.). If you have more information, you can add them in the corresponding
tea-house discussion
.
I have an eye on that page.

Best,
Leila


>
> Best
> ___
> 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] Something fun to share - Jimmy jokes about his "stare" fundraising photo

[Leila Zia]

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 7:50 AM, Gregory Varnum 
wrote:

> Greetings,
>
> I have chatted with a number of folks over the years about ways to help
> promote the annual fundraising appeal - but in ways that did not feel so
> serious that it was out of our character to post on social media.
>
> Good news - it appears this year Jimmy has participated in a video that
> serves this purpose very well. :)
>

It was very refreshing to see this one. Thanks for sharing it. :-)

Leila


>
> -greg (User:Varnent)
> ___
> 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] Quality issues

[Leila Zia]

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 8:28 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:
>
> > 5.People need to able to trust all data in WikiData, otherwise they just
> > wont use it because as Wikidata expands the same PR firms, interest
> groups
> > which have seen so many of WP issues will gravitate to the easier to
> > manipulate WikiData
> >
>
>
> I think the potential problem here is far worse: people *will use* the
> data, because their lack of trustworthiness, as amply described in the
> Wikidata disclaimer[1], is no longer visible when they're displayed as
> "fact" by dominant search engines.
>

It's worth mentioning:

Dominant search engines do not rely on one source of information to surface
results, they get information from many sources, weigh the responses they
get based on the trust on the sources and many other factors, and aggregate
to find the best answer to be shown to the user.
I just used "chicken pox" as a search query in Google, I see an information
box on the right-hand-side of the page about the disease, and when I click
on Sources I get this page

("See where we found the medical information") which shows all the sources
Google has used to retrieve information about chicken pox from, nothing in
that list starts with wiki. Of course, this is not the case for all search
queries, for some of them, Google still uses Wikipedia snippets.

Leila
___
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] Quality issues

[Leila Zia]

Hi Andreas,

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Moreover, I was somewhat surprised to learn the other day that, apparently,
> over 80 percent of Wikidata statements are either unreferenced or only
> referenced to a Wikipedia:
>
>
> https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Citing_as_a_public_service.pdf=17
>
> That seems like a recipe for disaster, given that Wikidata feeds the Google
> Knowledge Graph and Bing Satori to some extent.
>
> Thoughts?
>

Here are my thoughts:

1) No, it's not a recipe for disaster. :-) I expand below.

2) People sit at the different parts of the spectrum when it comes to the
issues around Wikidata references. What almost all these people have in
common is that they know having references is a very valuable thing for
Wikidata (or any other knowledge base for that matter).

3) As a researcher, as long as the data is in Wikidata, with or without a
reference, I'm already some steps ahead. If there is no reference, I have a
starting point to look for a reference for that specific value, and in that
process, I may find conflicting data with new references. For a project in
a growing stage, these are opportunities, not blockers.

4) I hear a lot of sensitivity about referencing Wikidata claim values to
Wikipedia. I hear people's concerns (having loops in referencing mechanisms
is not good) but I do not consider the existence of Wikipedia references an
issue and I certainly prefer a Wikipedia reference over no reference,
especially if the date the information was extracted at is also tracked
somewhere in Wikidata. Giving information to the researcher that the data
has come from Wikipedia will give him/her a head-start about where to
continue the search.

5) I see a need to give the users of open data a chance to use data with
more knowledge and control. For example, if you are an app developer, you
should be able to figure out relatively easily what data in Wikidata you
can fully trust, and what data you may want to skip using in your app. At
the moment, some part of the community considers a value with a non-
Wikipedia reference approved/monitored by a human as trustworthy (this is
no written rule, I'm summarizing my current understanding based on
discussions with some of the Wikidata community members, including myself
:-). But, among other things, the reference in Wikidata may not be a
trustworthy reference. We should surface how much trust one should have in
the values in Wikidata to the end-user.

What is amazing is: There are many great things one can do based on the
data that is being gathered in Wikidata. We should all work together to
improve that data, but we should also acknowledge that our attention is
split across many projects (this is definitely the case for me), and as a
result, we will be seeing steady and smooth improvements in Wikidata, and
not sudden and very fast improvements. We need to stay curious, excited,
committed, and patient. :-)

Leila

Disclaimer: These are my personal views about references in Wikidata, and
not necessarily the views of my team or the Wikimedia Foundation. :-)
___
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] Anybody alive?

[Leila Zia]

I'm still free and alive. :)
On Feb 24, 2016 9:40 AM, "Milos Rancic"  wrote:

> 8 (eight) hours have passed without any email. Am I the last
> Wikimedian not abducted by aliens?
>
> --
> Milos
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

[Leila Zia]

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:59 PM, Andrea Zanni <zanni.andre...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> As I said in previous discussion, what WMF really lacks is a precise
> policy/project *in favor* of Open Access: we are not doing anything at
> higher level, and very promising projects are frozen or waiting for
> volunteer good will.


Just want to point out that the WMF has an Open Access policy
<https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Open_access_policy>. This policy does
not immediately impact the current discussion since it's focused on
where/how research supported by the Foundation should be published, but
it's a strong step in the right direction.​


> I personally think that we are making a big mistake
> thinking that the OA movement can do well without us. It's not.
>

​You are not alone. We live in an ecosystem and our long term success
depends on the success of others in this ecosystem, such as the OA
movement.

Leila

--
​​Leila Zia
Research Scientist
Wikimedia Foundation
​


>
> Aubrey
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 7:16 AM, David Goodman <dgge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > We have the purpose of providing free access to information, information
> > from any publicly  accessible source, paid or free. Before we had the
> > Wikipedia Library, sources of information from many extremely expensive
> > paid sources were not readily available to our editors except for those
> > having a connection to a major university library.  Now that we do have
> it,
> > at least some of this is accessible to at least some active editors, who
> > can incorporate the information from them into our articles, and thus
> make
> > it freely accessible to the world. That's enough justification.
> >
> > If all we did was re-package information that was already freely
> available,
> > our role would be very  limited. The existence of restrictions on  access
> > to limitation is of course very unfortunate. Making a change in this
> system
> > is on of the additional purposes of Wikipedia. We do this in multiple
> ways.
> > Among them is providing an example of open publishing; among them is
> > advocacy for the lessening of copyright and other restrictions, and also
> >  writing free material based on unfree. The principle of what we do is,
> > what will be best for the encyclopedia.
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:25 AM, Keegan Peterzell <
> keegan.w...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Shani,
> > >
> > > This blog post by Jake and the Library team might suffice. It's from
> last
> > > year and directly addresses this issue:
> > >
> > > http://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/09/16/open-access-in-a-closed-world/
> > >
> > > ~ Keegan
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
> > > On Feb 14, 2016 10:09 PM, "Shani" <shani.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Would love to hear what the Wikipedia Library Project team has to say
> > on
> > > > the issue.
> > > >
> > > > Pinging Jake Orlowitz & Alex Stinson.
> > > >
> > > > Shani.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > As the panel moderator, I felt there was a rather strong consensus
> > > (from
> > > > > the various communication channels -- wiki pages, blog & Facebook
> > posts
> > > > and
> > > > > discussions, and the panel) that went a bit beyond what Robert said
> > > > (which
> > > > > is certainly an important piece.
> > > > >
> > > > > A number of people also felt that, while the Elsevier deal may have
> > > been
> > > > a
> > > > > good one, there may also have been better ways to communicate it --
> > and
> > > > > specifically, ways to place restrictions on the kind of language
> > > > (entities
> > > > > like) Elsevier could use around the Wikimedia trademarks. I believe
> > > this
> > > > > was all absorbed by Wikipedia Library staff, and I have no doubt
> that
> > > > > future announcements will be better suited to Wikimedia values.
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree with Lodewijk that strong consensus would be needed to
> > overturn
> > > > an
> > > > > existing contract. Please note also that at least six Wikimedia
> > > > volunteers
> > > > > would be impacted if Wikimedia

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Leila Zia]

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:19 AM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Gerard, you and I agree on most of these points. Certainly, there is room
> for improvement on intra-Wikimedia search, and such work is important, and
> I would assume more pressing for non-English projects. And I agree, it is
> quite possible Siko's concerns about integrity are not directly related to
> the Knowledge Engine. (If they are unrelated, that would only more strongly
> suggest there are fundamental issues to be addressed around integrity;
> multiple issues would be worse than isolated incidents.)
>

​Pete, I suggest you reach out to Siko and talk to her directly if you want
to learn more about what she referred to in her email. Only she can explain
to you, if she chooses to, what specific issues led her to feel a specific
way towards her position in the Foundation. Trying to pick up signals is
very tricky as there are some signals here and there, but there are also a
lot of noise. If Siko chooses not to speak further, I suggest not
speculating. If Siko chooses to explain more, I suggest talking directly to
the individual(s) who are responsible for the practices that have concerned
Siko. Only by hearing all sides of the story you can get close to a true
understanding of the problem. (I acknowledge that this will be a very time
consuming approach for everyone involved, but if you want to know the
truth, there is no other way.)
 ​
Leila

--
Leila Zia
Research Scientist
Wikimedia Foundation


> Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> On Feb 15, 2016 9:11 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > The notion that WMF should out google Google is stupid, certainly at that
> > kind of money. Search in the Wikimedia Foundation is much better but it
> is
> > still easy for Magnus (for some time now) to improve the search results
> > considerably.
> >
> > The notion that search should not be strategic is laughable. Jane said
> that
> > she uses Google to search results in our project because it does a better
> > job. She searches in English !! Now consider searching in Tamil it finds
> a
> > lot more than only results in Tamil. Then apply this to our aim; provide
> > the sum of all knowledge.
> >
> > Yes Siko left. It does however not follow that this has to do with grant
> of
> > the Knight foundation. Yes she is outspoken in what she says but it does
> > not follow that everything good is suspect. When James Heilman says that
> he
> > has an issue with the focus on search, that is different. It does still
> not
> > follow that we do a good job on search or that the additional effort as
> > described in the Knight grant is not an important persuit.
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> > On 15 February 2016 at 17:57, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Lila,
> > >
> > > The confusion, as you will surely agree, is understandable given the
> > > scattershot and often contradictory information provided by WMF to
> > > differing audiences. Above all, I hope the next volley of communication
> > > will address the central contradictions between what you and Jimmy
> Wales
> > > publicly stated prior to the publication of the grant application, and
> > the
> > > words in the application itself.
> > >
> > > I will quote these below, but first to underscore the importance: when
> > Siko
> > > questioned the integrity of the organization, these are the apparent
> > > willful lies that came to mind for me.
> > >
> > > -Pete
> > > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> > >
> > > Quotes:
> > >
> > > "To make this very clear: no one in top positions has proposed or is
> > > proposing that WMF should get into the general "searching" or to try to
> > "be
> > > google". It's an interesting hypothetical which has not been part of
> any
> > > serious strategy proposal, nor even discussed at the board level, nor
> > > proposed to the board by staff, nor a part of any grant, etc. It's a
> > total
> > > lie." -J. Wales, Feb. 1
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales=prev=704421946
> > >
> > > "Let’s all treat each other withcivility
> > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Civility> and etiquette
> > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Etiquette>, and see if we can
> > > collaborate
> > > to build a consensus <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Consen

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

[Leila Zia]

Hi Dariusz,

I want to share with you the following relatively scattered thoughts and
leave it to you to decide how to continue engaging with us. :-) I hope you
find them helpful:

* BoT has been too silent, given the state of matters. I'm much more
worried about our volunteers when I say this, than the WMF's staff (which
I'm one of).

* You engaging in this list has been a breeze for me. I know at least
someone from the BoT is reading these emails and is engaging. Thank you for
that. :-)

* Because of the lack of clear communications by the BoT, I'm uncertain
whether there is an acknowledgement by the BoT about the issues we are
facing. What can assure me at the moment is to see a list of items the BoT
sees as problematic, and a plan for addressing them, and a schedule for
when we should expect seeing them addressed. (Half-jokingly: maybe we need
a phabrictor board for the BoT to track specific tasks that can be shared
publicly and their prioritization).

* Although I really appreciate you engaging in this list, I see that in the
absence of more frequent official communications from the BoT, what you say
in this list is interpreted as a strong signal from the BoT, and it is held
to the standards we expect to see when we communicate with a Board member.
This means that if you are not specific and even more careful with your
choice of words, you will hear strong criticism, just because
words/statements can be interpreted differently depending on the context we
are operating in.

* I'm asking you to continue communicating with us in your capacity as a
Board member, and I'm also asking you to be very very careful with your
choice of words and statements. Trust me: I know what I'm asking you is
extremely hard. So, here is what I offer you: I assume good faith in what
you say and please reach out if I can be of help.

Ido, Ori, thank you for your emails. They help us be stronger, and move in
the right direction.

Leila


Leila Zia
Research Scientist
Wikimedia Foundation

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <dar...@alk.edu.pl>
wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Casey Dentinger <cdentin...@wikimedia.org
> >
> wrote:
>
> > > and in technology we're years behind the curve
> >
> > I think this is a reductive view of the technology at WMF.  It is true
> > that many systems have been around in name for a long time, but that
> > doesn't mean they haven't been evolving under the hood (as Ori describes)
> > to scale with demand at the same (or better) pace as our trendier peers
> > (who are often married to fly-by-night technologies).  In an era of 10s
> > pageloads hauling megabytes of trackware, WP's stats are actually pretty
> > stellar.
> >
>
> True, by all means. But my point (clumsily phrased) was that we will not
> likely be considered more technologically advanced than Google or Apple,
> while we really ARE more proficient in terms of the social systems and
> community collaboration. My only regret is that we way too rarely reiterate
> how amazing we are. The fact that we do a lot of great tech stuff, too is a
> reason to celebrate (and my apologies to anyone who read my comment as
> disparaging our work there).
>
> Let me put it this way: it is great we have the tech as robust and advanced
> as it is. This is awesome. Let's also recognize the fact that our
> communities, working together with the WMF, is something unique, to avoid
> the narrow vision of "evil foundation" vs. "unreasonable and random crowd".
>
> dj
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] I am going to San Francisco

[Leila Zia]

I discussed with both James and Jimmy the choice of the word "unanimous".
I'm satisfied with their responses. The BoT had a straw poll to make a
decision about the leadership in November and the result of that poll may
or may not have been unanimous (I'm fine with it being a straw poll at that
point in time given the fact that there was a big information asymmetry
among BoT members which would question doing a real poll. I'm also happy to
see that BoT members are listening and want to improve our information
sharing mechanisms). However, all BoT members agreed to support Lila, which
is what Patricio has told us.

As a side note, I'd like to ask that we don't bring the conversations
specifically tagged private to lists or conversations that include a
broader audience. For example, staff were asked to create a safe space for
everyone and not share the content of the November meeting publicly.

Leila
On Feb 29, 2016 5:43 PM, "Andreas Kolbe"  wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 12:52 AM, Risker  wrote:
>
> >
> > So please, let's stop pretending those two words mean the same thing.
> >
>
>
> They don't mean the same thing at all. But would you really dispute the
> statement that WMF leaders should be both transparent AND honest?
>
> Transparency is a fundamental WMF value.
>
> Nobody here is talking about vendor agreements; at least I am not. I have
> no problem whatsoever with your scenario. If the WMF enters into an
> umbrella agreement or business deal with Google or whoever, then that is
> something the community should know. If the WMF gets computer hardware at a
> preferential rate, absolutely no one is interested in that.
>
> Andreas
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

[Leila Zia]

Hi Pete,

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 9:21 AM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I carefully considered whether to publish this email
> before doing so. I'm confident I'm on solid ethical ground (i.e., didn't
> violate anyone's rights), and I'm pretty sure the impact on Wikimedia will
> be positive in the end as well.


​It's hard to argue with this statement one way or the other (when you are
sure, but you cannot prove.) From experience we have seen that Wikimedia is
a big
​ and distributed​
Movement and the impact of such actions on the Movement is unlikely to be
noticeable
​.​

​

Specifics about my choice to release the email below:
>
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Erik Moeller <eloque...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 2016-03-09 16:56 GMT-08:00 Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > I feel this message can provide important insight into the dynamics
> > > surrounding James H.'s dismissal, and various people have expressed
> > > interest in seeing it, so I'm forwarding it to the list. (For what it's
> > > worth, I did check with James H.; he had no objection to my sharing
> it.)
>

​It is problematic that you have checked with James but not Jimmy prior to
publishing this email. The content of the email does not justify this
action for me.


> Erik,
>
> So the "private channel" you mention has never existed between Jimmy Wales
> and myself. There has never been an agreement, either explicit or implied,
> between us about whether our communications are private.


There are norms that people follow in online communications. It is expected
that you check with the sender of the email before publishing his/her
email. People expect private conversations to stay private, and the
definition of a private conversation is not complicated in most of the
people's minds: if a conversation doesn't happen in a public channel, it's
considered private.

Where I do have a healthy line of communication with someone, I agree with
> you.


​If you see that you don't have a healthy line of communication with Jimmy,
you may want to consider not communicating with him at all. Initiating
and/or participating in conversations about someone when you cannot have a
healthy conversation with that person won't be beneficial. You will end up
being in a position that you cannot improve things between the two of you,
but you will have extra information that you will feel burdened to share
with others.

I hope you think about what you did here, and you decide to take a
different course of action in the future.

Best,
Leila

--
​​Leila Zia
Research Scientist
Wikimedia Foundation
​

>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Pete Forsyth
> Date: Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:49 AM
> Subject: Re: A conversation?
> To: Jimmy Wales, James Heilman
>
>
> Jimmy, thanks for following up -- and James, thanks for alerting me of this
> (it went to an old email address I no longer check. Good reminder though, I
> am putting an auto-reply on there.)
>
> I see that we have three things under discussion, and I want to reiterate
> that I strongly urge the first:
>
>1. JW and JMH have a private conversation with the support of an
>independent, skilled facilitator
>2. JW and JMH have a truly one-on-one conversation
>3. JW and JMH have a conversation with PF as informal facilitator
>
> I appreciate being looped in here, but I want to say very clearly: I don't
> have the professional skills to serve as a facilitator here, even if I did
> I am too involved to do it well, and I also don't really have the
> bandwidth. However, I'm sure the WMF's HR department could refer you to
> some excellent people. (I could give referrals, but I'm sure the HR
> department is better equipped for that.) I think that the value of
> professional facilitation/mediation/ombuds/whatever is well known, so I
> won't go into the details of why I think this is a good idea unless asked.
>
> In the meantime, I would very strongly urge you, Jimmy, to cease making
> speculative statements about James' honesty or state of mind. James is
> probably much less volatile than me, but personally I would probably freak
> out if somebody was saying stuff like that about me, either publicly or
> privately. It's highly inflammatory.
>
> I would also request that you address (publicly, I hope) my main question
> about your interpretation of the board vote about "discussing long term
> strategy" as evidence of James' dishonesty. I think that is a point you
> could, and should, walk back without much drama. I think it's safe to say
> that it's highly obvious that you two agree about what constitutes "long
> term strategy," and that's fine -- but the fact th

[Wikimedia-l] Research on ways to reduce minority/gender gap in Wikipedia

[Leila Zia]

Hi all,

From time to time, we have a chance in WMF Research to start a research
collaboration with researchers in academia/industry. In this case, we may
have an opportunity to form a research collaboration to spend some of our
attention on minority/gender gap issues on Wikipedia [1].

There is a specific proposal [2] that I would like to hear if you and/or
your community are interested to work with us on. As you will see once you
read the proposal, the general idea of the intervention suggested will
require at least one community, likely more depending on the size of the
community, being willing to work with us and give it a try. Individual
contributors, chapters, affiliates, and user groups are all welcome, as I
understand the gender/minority gap is a topic that many of you are
interested in.

Please leave comments on the discussion page of the proposal if you would
like to get more involved or if you have questions/comments.

Thank you! :)

Best,
Leila

[1] The current proposal is for Wikipedia. However, this does not need to
remain a research project on Wikipedia. For example, it would be invaluable
to learn if there are differences in projects in terms of how their
volunteer projects respond to interventions with the aim of reducing gender
gap, for example. So, if your project is not Wikipedia, you're still
welcome to get in touch with me.

[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Voice_and_exit_in_a_voluntary_work_environment


--
Leila Zia
Senior Research Scientist
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

[Leila Zia]

Hi MZMcBride,

On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 11:15 AM, MZMcBride <z...@mzmcbride.com> wrote:
>
>
> Matthew Flaschen wrote:
> >English Wikipedia policy is clear
> >(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppetry):
> >"In votes or vote-like discussions, new users may be disregarded or
> >given significantly less weight, especially if there are many of them
> >expressing the same opinion."
> >
> >Other wikis have similar conventions and policies, and some other wikis
> >even formalize this into required edit counts.
>
> It's darkly amusing to see you citing the English Wikipedia. When I
> pointed out to you on mediawiki.org that
> ​​
> "it would never be appropriate
> for the person who began a discussion to then also close that discussion,"
> you replied that "English Wikipedia policies do not apply here."
>

​Note that when Matthew brought up the example of English Wikipedia (in
"English Wikipedia policy is clear ..."), it was in response to "This is
always the case." in the following comment:

On 02/21/2017 06:24 PM, Todd Allen wrote:

> No. The community I am referring to is all WMF project participants who
> might be interested in presenting their opinion on the subject, regardless
> of whether or not they currently participate in any given specific area.
> That is always the case.

​
​Matthew used English Wikipedia as one example to say that the statement
"This is always the case." is not correct.​ Using English Wikipedia as an
example to negate that statement is not in contradiction with what Matthew
said to you on mediawiki.org.

On a separate note to those of you who contribute to technical spaces and
are not happy about how some aspects have gone:

Matthew and a few other people have been trying /really hard/ to make
Wikimedia's technical spaces better. You know that embarking on such a path
is very difficult: it requires spending many many hours of your time (read
life) on it, elaborating, deliberating, documenting, discussing things with
people from different paths of life, etc. They have been doing it for
months now. It's my understanding that they are doing this not to exercise
power over others but to make our technical spaces better, to make them
more enjoyable to contribute in.

For all of us who contribute in technical spaces, we should remember: We
may not agree with every step they take, but we all owe it to them to help
them on this path. What they are doing is a good thing and that's something
that sometimes gets lost in these lengthy conversations.

Best,
Leila

--
​
Leila Zia
Senior Research Scientist
Wikimedia Foundation


> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

[Leila Zia]

On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 7:39 PM, Tim Landscheidt <t...@tim-landscheidt.de>
wrote:

> Leila Zia <le...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> > […]
>
> > On a separate note to those of you who contribute to technical spaces and
> > are not happy about how some aspects have gone:
>
> > Matthew and a few other people have been trying /really hard/ to make
> > Wikimedia's technical spaces better. You know that embarking on such a
> path
> > is very difficult: it requires spending many many hours of your time
> (read
> > life) on it, elaborating, deliberating, documenting, discussing things
> with
> > people from different paths of life, etc. They have been doing it for
> > months now. It's my understanding that they are doing this not to
> exercise
> > power over others but to make our technical spaces better, to make them
> > more enjoyable to contribute in.
>
> > For all of us who contribute in technical spaces, we should remember: We
> > may not agree with every step they take, but we all owe it to them to
> help
> > them on this path. What they are doing is a good thing and that's
> something
> > that sometimes gets lost in these lengthy conversations.
>
> This is a circular and illogical argument.  Just because
> someone has good intentions or invested time and effort does
> not mean that the path they chose is the right one to take.
> And if someone is steering towards a cliff, encouraging peo-
> ple to keep pushing the cart to honour the navigator's dedi-
> cation is self-destructive.
>

I agree with everything you say above, and I'd like to clarify something in
response to your first sentence, as reading that and re-reading the latter
part of my initial post, I realize I may have signaled something that I
didn't mean to:

I didn't mean to say that since people have spent a lot of time on task X,
we need to help them finish it. I meant to say the following:

* I wanted to ask everyone involved in these discussions to have more
empathy towards one another. Things sometimes don't go well when we start
sending back-and-forth emails on this list, and on this thread
specifically, we've already started some loaded statements. My request was
to please remember that there is a human on the other side reading your
message, most likely operating based on good faith: this person is,
hopefully, making decisions based on logic, but he/she does have emotions,
let's keep that in mind.

​Leila​


>
> Tim
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

[Wikimedia-l] Upcoming Research Showcase, November 16, 2016

[Leila Zia]

[Apologies for cross-posting]

Hi everyone,

Almost a year ago, we [1] embarked on a research project to understand who
Wikipedia readers are. More specifically, we set a goal for finding a
taxonomy of Wikipedia readers. In the upcoming Research Showcase, I will
present the findings of this research.

*Logistics*​
The Research Showcase will be live-streamed on Wednesday, November 16, 2016
at 11:35 (PST) 19:35 (UTC).

YouTube stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O24F1xkbNwI

As usual, you can join the conversation on IRC freedone at
#wikimedia-research. And, you can watch our past research showcases at
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Showcase.

*Title*
Why We Read Wikipedia

*Abstract*
Every day, millions of readers come to Wikipedia to satisfy a broad range
of information needs, however, little is known about what these needs are.
In this presentation, I share the result of a research that sets to help us
understand Wikipedia readers better. Based on an initial user study on
English, Persian, and Spanish Wikipedia, we build a taxonomy of Wikipedia
use-cases along several dimensions, capturing users’ motivations to visit
Wikipedia, the depth of knowledge they are seeking, and their knowledge of
the topic of interest prior to visiting Wikipedia. Then, we quantify the
prevalence of these use-cases via a large-scale user survey conducted on
English Wikipedia. Our analyses highlight the variety of factors driving
users to Wikipedia, such as current events, media coverage of a topic,
personal curiosity, work or school assignments, or boredom. Finally, we
match survey responses to the respondents’ digital traces in Wikipedia’s
server logs, enabling the discovery of behavioral patterns associated with
specific use-cases. Our findings advance our understanding of reader
motivations and behavior on Wikipedia and have potential implications for
developers aiming to improve Wikipedia’s user experience, editors striving
to cater to (a subset of) their readers’ needs, third-party services (such
as search engines) providing access to Wikipedia content, and researchers
aiming to build tools such as article recommendation engines.


*How to prepare? What to expect?*
If you decide to attend, here are a few things I would like to ask you to
keep in mind, especially if this will be your first time to one of our
research showcases:

* Like many other research projects in fields that are not heavily
explored, the findings of this research will create more questions than
they answer. I encourage you to keep these questions in mind throughout the
presentation and discussion: "What can we do with this finding? What other
questions can we ask? What other ideas can we try?"

* Be open to ask these questions to yourself, especially if you are a
Wikipedia editor, even before coming to the showcase: "Why do I edit
Wikipedia? Who am I writing the content for, if anyone? Will I change the
way I write content if I know more about who reads it (to encourage or
discourage certain types of reading or readers)? What needs an encyclopedia
should serve? What is Wikipedia: A place one can quickly find the answer to
his/her questions, or a place that one can go to when he/she wants to spend
a quiet time reading and learning, or a place for both and even more? etc."

* And, see if you would be interested to see the result of this study in
your language. What will be presented is based on research on English,
Persian, and Spanish Wikipedia (the data from the latter two projects have
been used only for one part of the research). We are interested in running
the study on at least 2-3 more languages to understand the robustness of
some of the results across different languages, and to also help
communities with having access to the results for their specific language
project.

​Looking forward to seeing you there, and if you can't make it, please feel
free to watch the video later and get in touch with us with
questions/comments. :)

Best,
Leila
--
Leila Zia
Senior Research Scientist
Wikimedia Foundation

​[1] WMF Research and researchers from three academic institutions: EPFL,
GESIS, and Stanford University, in collaboration with WMF Reading.
​
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Upcoming Research Showcase, November 16, 2016

[Leila Zia]

Hi Ziko,

Too bad you can't be there. :/ Do watch it afterwards if you're interested
and ping if you'd like to chat about it.

Best,
Leila

On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Ziko van Dijk <zvand...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
> The topic sounds great. I'm afraid I can't watch it live, as I have other
> duties in the evening.
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
> 2016-11-09 23:29 GMT+01:00 Leila Zia <le...@wikimedia.org>:
>
> > [Apologies for cross-posting]
> >
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > Almost a year ago, we [1] embarked on a research project to understand
> who
> > Wikipedia readers are. More specifically, we set a goal for finding a
> > taxonomy of Wikipedia readers. In the upcoming Research Showcase, I will
> > present the findings of this research.
> >
> > *Logistics*​
> > The Research Showcase will be live-streamed on Wednesday, November 16,
> 2016
> > at 11:35 (PST) 19:35 (UTC).
> >
> > YouTube stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O24F1xkbNwI
> >
> > As usual, you can join the conversation on IRC freedone at
> > #wikimedia-research. And, you can watch our past research showcases at
> > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Showcase.
> >
> > *Title*
> > Why We Read Wikipedia
> >
> > *Abstract*
> > Every day, millions of readers come to Wikipedia to satisfy a broad range
> > of information needs, however, little is known about what these needs
> are.
> > In this presentation, I share the result of a research that sets to help
> us
> > understand Wikipedia readers better. Based on an initial user study on
> > English, Persian, and Spanish Wikipedia, we build a taxonomy of Wikipedia
> > use-cases along several dimensions, capturing users’ motivations to visit
> > Wikipedia, the depth of knowledge they are seeking, and their knowledge
> of
> > the topic of interest prior to visiting Wikipedia. Then, we quantify the
> > prevalence of these use-cases via a large-scale user survey conducted on
> > English Wikipedia. Our analyses highlight the variety of factors driving
> > users to Wikipedia, such as current events, media coverage of a topic,
> > personal curiosity, work or school assignments, or boredom. Finally, we
> > match survey responses to the respondents’ digital traces in Wikipedia’s
> > server logs, enabling the discovery of behavioral patterns associated
> with
> > specific use-cases. Our findings advance our understanding of reader
> > motivations and behavior on Wikipedia and have potential implications for
> > developers aiming to improve Wikipedia’s user experience, editors
> striving
> > to cater to (a subset of) their readers’ needs, third-party services
> (such
> > as search engines) providing access to Wikipedia content, and researchers
> > aiming to build tools such as article recommendation engines.
> >
> >
> > *How to prepare? What to expect?*
> > If you decide to attend, here are a few things I would like to ask you to
> > keep in mind, especially if this will be your first time to one of our
> > research showcases:
> >
> > * Like many other research projects in fields that are not heavily
> > explored, the findings of this research will create more questions than
> > they answer. I encourage you to keep these questions in mind throughout
> the
> > presentation and discussion: "What can we do with this finding? What
> other
> > questions can we ask? What other ideas can we try?"
> >
> > * Be open to ask these questions to yourself, especially if you are a
> > Wikipedia editor, even before coming to the showcase: "Why do I edit
> > Wikipedia? Who am I writing the content for, if anyone? Will I change the
> > way I write content if I know more about who reads it (to encourage or
> > discourage certain types of reading or readers)? What needs an
> encyclopedia
> > should serve? What is Wikipedia: A place one can quickly find the answer
> to
> > his/her questions, or a place that one can go to when he/she wants to
> spend
> > a quiet time reading and learning, or a place for both and even more?
> etc."
> >
> > * And, see if you would be interested to see the result of this study in
> > your language. What will be presented is based on research on English,
> > Persian, and Spanish Wikipedia (the data from the latter two projects
> have
> > been used only for one part of the research). We are interested in
> running
> > the study on at least 2-3 more languages to understand the robustness of
> > some of the results across different languages, and to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] DEITYBOUNCE and reader logs (was Re: Introducing Victoria Coleman, WMF Chief Technology Officer)

[Leila Zia]

Hi James,

On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 10:22 AM, James Salsman <jsals...@gmail.com> wrote:


> The Foundation's main security problem at present is that all of the
> reader logs with IP addresses get shipped off to a lab at Stanford
> which is under NDA,
>

​Please create a task in phabricator for this if you have specifics and
share the link here. I've talked to Research (my team), Security, and
Analytics, and we are not aware of any reader logs being shipped out of the
WMF servers.​

​Best,
Leila​

--
​​Leila Zia
Senior Research Scientist
Wikimedia Foundation
​


> Best regards,
> Jim
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] storing IP addresses and their geolocations?

[Leila Zia]

​Hi James,​

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 9:23 AM, James Salsman  wrote:

>
> I repeat my request that the IP and proxy information be anonymized
> with a secure cryptographic has before being stored to nonvolatile
> media,


When you're ready to suggest a change, can you suggest this on that same
thread (
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/analytics/2016-November/005508.html
), or on a different thread in analytics-l? ​The Analytics team is
responsible for the infrastructure and storage of the data you're referring
to and these discussions are well suited for that list where you have the
expertise to respond to your questions/comments.

Best,
Leila



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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Upcoming Research Showcase, November 16, 2016

[Leila Zia]

Hi all,

A reminder that this is happening in 2 hours from now.

Best,
Leila


On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Leila Zia <le...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> [Apologies for cross-posting]
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> Almost a year ago, we [1] embarked on a research project to understand who
> Wikipedia readers are. More specifically, we set a goal for finding a
> taxonomy of Wikipedia readers. In the upcoming Research Showcase, I will
> present the findings of this research.
>
> *Logistics*​
> The Research Showcase will be live-streamed on Wednesday, November 16,
> 2016 at 11:35 (PST) 19:35 (UTC).
>
> YouTube stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O24F1xkbNwI
>
> As usual, you can join the conversation on IRC freedone at
> #wikimedia-research. And, you can watch our past research showcases at
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Showcase.
>
> *Title*
> Why We Read Wikipedia
>
> *Abstract*
> Every day, millions of readers come to Wikipedia to satisfy a broad range
> of information needs, however, little is known about what these needs are.
> In this presentation, I share the result of a research that sets to help us
> understand Wikipedia readers better. Based on an initial user study on
> English, Persian, and Spanish Wikipedia, we build a taxonomy of Wikipedia
> use-cases along several dimensions, capturing users’ motivations to visit
> Wikipedia, the depth of knowledge they are seeking, and their knowledge of
> the topic of interest prior to visiting Wikipedia. Then, we quantify the
> prevalence of these use-cases via a large-scale user survey conducted on
> English Wikipedia. Our analyses highlight the variety of factors driving
> users to Wikipedia, such as current events, media coverage of a topic,
> personal curiosity, work or school assignments, or boredom. Finally, we
> match survey responses to the respondents’ digital traces in Wikipedia’s
> server logs, enabling the discovery of behavioral patterns associated with
> specific use-cases. Our findings advance our understanding of reader
> motivations and behavior on Wikipedia and have potential implications for
> developers aiming to improve Wikipedia’s user experience, editors striving
> to cater to (a subset of) their readers’ needs, third-party services (such
> as search engines) providing access to Wikipedia content, and researchers
> aiming to build tools such as article recommendation engines.
>
>
> *How to prepare? What to expect?*
> If you decide to attend, here are a few things I would like to ask you to
> keep in mind, especially if this will be your first time to one of our
> research showcases:
>
> * Like many other research projects in fields that are not heavily
> explored, the findings of this research will create more questions than
> they answer. I encourage you to keep these questions in mind throughout the
> presentation and discussion: "What can we do with this finding? What other
> questions can we ask? What other ideas can we try?"
>
> * Be open to ask these questions to yourself, especially if you are a
> Wikipedia editor, even before coming to the showcase: "Why do I edit
> Wikipedia? Who am I writing the content for, if anyone? Will I change the
> way I write content if I know more about who reads it (to encourage or
> discourage certain types of reading or readers)? What needs an encyclopedia
> should serve? What is Wikipedia: A place one can quickly find the answer to
> his/her questions, or a place that one can go to when he/she wants to spend
> a quiet time reading and learning, or a place for both and even more? etc."
>
> * And, see if you would be interested to see the result of this study in
> your language. What will be presented is based on research on English,
> Persian, and Spanish Wikipedia (the data from the latter two projects have
> been used only for one part of the research). We are interested in running
> the study on at least 2-3 more languages to understand the robustness of
> some of the results across different languages, and to also help
> communities with having access to the results for their specific language
> project.
>
> ​Looking forward to seeing you there, and if you can't make it, please
> feel free to watch the video later and get in touch with us with
> questions/comments. :)
>
> Best,
> Leila
> --
> Leila Zia
> Senior Research Scientist
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> ​[1] WMF Research and researchers from three academic institutions: EPFL,
> GESIS, and Stanford University, in collaboration with WMF Reading.
> ​
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Using non-free elements vs our values (Apple Maps vs Wikipedia iOS app)

[Leila Zia]

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Dan Garry  wrote:

>
> Sadly, as is typical with this mailing list, we've now delved into a world
> of hypotheticals, idealisms, and misrepresentations. It would not be a
> productive use of time (and, indeed, donor money) for me to participate
> further in this thread.
>

​Without manually labeling all the comments made on this thread and by
quickly going over it again: What I see is that most of the comments on
this thread are not hypothetical. They are idealistic, but that's the
nature of the work we do (Building Wikimedia projects is idealistic at its
core.). If one conversation doesn't go where you want it to go, please
don't give up on the whole thread. There are many good points raised across
this thread. What's being discussed here is very important.

And of course, I respect how you want to spend your staff time and what you
think is the best use of your time. :)

Best,
Leila​



>
> Dan
>
> --
> Dan Garry
> Lead Product Manager, Discovery
> Wikimedia Foundation
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Status of the Code of Conduct for technical spaces

[Leila Zia]

Hi all,

This thread is diverging more and more away from its original subject.
Please open a new thread if you're interested in discussing items not
directly related to Quim's email re CoC. This can help the audience of this
list with discovery of relevant content and discussions later on.

Thanks,
Leila

On Mar 19, 2017 09:07, "Chris "Jethro" Schilling" 
wrote:

> I think the calendar I mentioned above on Meta probably could be improved
> in some ways. If a lot of folks start using it, it will become quite long,
> for one. An archiving system for each month might be a good idea.
>
> What ways could there be to sort or segment the calendar that would be
> useful for volunteers to search and parse important discussions, surveys,
>  and consultations?
>
> - Chris
>
> On Mar 19, 2017 7:57 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" 
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Please ..
> >
> > From my perspective we should not talk about secondary topics like this.
> We
> > should certainly not be this aggressive. I said it before and I say it
> > again. When you are interested in what we aim to achieve talk about WHAT
> we
> > can do to do better and let HOW we can do better from an organisational
> > point of view be only supportive of our objectives.
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> > On 19 March 2017 at 13:45, Rogol Domedonfors 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > "Jethro"
> > >
> > > On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 8:15 PM, you wrote:
> > >
> > > > Well, folks are free to ignore invitations to comment; there are
> > indeed a
> > > > lot of discussion notices for various matters, so I don't blame them
> if
> > > > they world rather volunteer their time in other places.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > But they cannot then also argue that they didn't know about it. If
> > people
> > > > want to know what's going on in our projects, it's their
> responsibility
> > > to
> > > > follow places where announcements are posted and read them.
> > > >
> > > > - Chris
> > > >
> > >
> > > Really?  As a Community Organiser within the Community Engagement part
> of
> > > the Foundation, do you not believe that the Foundation has some kind of
> > > responsibility too?  Perhaps the Foundation, with its tens of millions
> of
> > > dollars and hundereds of staff, and its ownership and control of the
> > means
> > > of communcation, might consider whether it can organise its engagement
> > with
> > > a disparate community on a more sophisticated basis than telling the
> > > volunteers that it's their responsbility to know how to engage
> > effectively
> > > with the Foundation?  Let me ask to to reread your comments from the
> > point
> > > of view of a volunteer whose work builds the projects and ask yourself
> > > whether the attitude embodied in your comment is not just ever so
> > slightly
> > > sub-optimal?  Are you completely satsifed that there is nothing at all
> > that
> > > the Foundation could or should do to improve the engagement it has with
> > the
> > > community?
> > >
> > > "Rogol"
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality assurance of articles

[Leila Zia]

Hi John,

This may be of interest to you:

We are working on building recommendation systems than can help editors
identify how to expand already existing articles in Wikipedia. This
includes but is not limited to identifying what sections are missing from
an article, what citations, what images, infobox information, etc. This is
research in its early days, if you'd like to follow up with it please visit
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Expanding_Wikipedia_stubs_across_languages

Best,
Leila


Leila Zia
Senior Research Scientist
Wikimedia Foundation

On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 2:50 PM, John Erling Blad <jeb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Are anyone doing any work on automated quality assurance of articles? Not
> the ORES-stuff, that is about creating hints from measured features. I'm
> thinking about verifying existence and completeness of citations, and
> structure of logical arguments.
>
> John
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality assurance of articles

[Leila Zia]

Hoi Gerard,

On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> When you analyse articles and find that some things are missing, it will
> help a lot when you can target these articles to the people who are likely
> interested. When people interested in soccer learn that a soccer player
> died, they are more likely to edit even write an article.
>

​You are absolutely right. This is what we even tested in the article
creation recommendation experiment and you could see that providing
personalized recommendations (where personalization was on the basis of
matching editors interests based on their history of contributions​) does
better than random important recommendations. A few pointers for you:

* Check out section 2.3 of the paper at https://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.03235.pdf to
see how this was done.
* I talk briefly about how we do the editor interest modeling at
https://youtu.be/lHbnvRwFC_A?t=20m44s

In general, we have at least two ways for recommending to people what they
like to edit: one would be using the information in their past edit history
and building topical models that can help us learn what topics an editor is
interested in. The other is by asking the editor to provide some seeds of
interest to us. For example, we ask you to tell us what kind of article you
would edit, and we give you recommendations similar to the seed you
provide. Each have its own advantages and you sometimes have to mix the two
approaches (and more) to give the editor enough breadth and depth of topics
to choose from.


> The approach for finding a subject that could do with more attention is one
> I applaud. When you want to do this across languages think Wikidata to
> define the area of interest for users. It will always include all the
> articles in all the languages. As you have seen with the Listeria lists,
> showing red links and Wikidata items is trivial.
>

​Yes, finding what is missing in a Wikipedia language by comparing language
editions is relatively easy, thanks to Wikidata. :) What is hard is ranking
these millions of missing articles in any language based on some notion of
importance. We developed a ranking system for the research I mentioned
above. You can read about it in Section 2.2 of the paper at
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.03235.pdf​. I talk about in less details at
https://youtu.be/lHbnvRwFC_A?t=16m58s. In a nutshell: we built a prediction
model that aims to predict the number of pageviews the article would
receive had it existed in the destination language where it's missing
today. The higher this predicted number for a missing article in a
language, the more important it is to create it.

Best,
Leila



> Thanks,
>      Gerard
>
> On 17 April 2017 at 02:04, Leila Zia <le...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi John,
> >
> > This may be of interest to you:
> >
> > We are working on building recommendation systems than can help editors
> > identify how to expand already existing articles in Wikipedia. This
> > includes but is not limited to identifying what sections are missing from
> > an article, what citations, what images, infobox information, etc. This
> is
> > research in its early days, if you'd like to follow up with it please
> visit
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Expanding_
> Wikipedia_stubs_across_
> > languages
> >
> > Best,
> > Leila
> >
> >
> > Leila Zia
> > Senior Research Scientist
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 2:50 PM, John Erling Blad <jeb...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Are anyone doing any work on automated quality assurance of articles?
> Not
> > > the ORES-stuff, that is about creating hints from measured features.
> I'm
> > > thinking about verifying existence and completeness of citations, and
> > > structure of logical arguments.
> > >
> > > John
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:w

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality assurance of articles

[Leila Zia]

On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 11:58 PM, John Erling Blad <jeb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Definitly part of the overall quality. I wonder, do you have any stats om
> how much positive change the previous attempts have triggered?
>

​[John and I went off-list for me to understand which specific previous
attempts he had in mind when asking the above. I have a better sense now
and I'm responding to that.]

I'm providing some pointers to indications or controlled experiment results
that show how well recommendations in the space of article creation work
(Note that I don't have results for the article expansion work to share for
now.):

We built an end-to-end system that identifies missing articles in a given
language, ranks them according to their importance in that given language,
and recommends them to editors who are interested to create them (interest
is inferred based on the topic of the articles the editor has edited in the
recent past). We ran a controlled experiment and showed that you can
increase article creation rate in Wikipedia by a factor of 3.2 if you do
personalized recommendations in the setting of the experiment (which was
editors receiving recommendations over email) while maintaining the same
level of quality as organically created articles on Wikipedia. We also
showed that personalized recommendations increase article creation rate by
a factor of almost 2 when compared to non-personalized recommendations. If
you are interested about the details of this study, you can read the paper
that describes it fully at https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.03235. If you prefer
a verbal presentation on this topic, I've recently presented this work, why
it's important, and some of the work we've started in the article expansion
research in CITRIS Exchange seminar series
<http://citris-uc.org/spring-2017-citris-research-exchange-seminar-series/> in
University of California, Berkeley. You can check out the presentation
slides
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Growing_Wikipedia_Across_Languages_via_Recommendations_CITRIS_20170315.pdf>
 and the video of the presentation
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHbnvRwFC_A=7=PLYTiwx6hV33vqwW7HWyYHMca4H0Ru6KQT>
.

Outside of the experimental setting, Content Translation is using the
recommendation
API <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Recommendation_API> behind the
research I explained above as part of their "Suggestions" feature. Every
week, around 180 articles get published on Wikipedia using Suggestions
feature alone. This is around 6-9% of all articles created via Content
Translation every week. So, we have some evidence that in practice, these
recommendations work, too.

I hope this helps.

Best,
Leila



>
> Den man. 17. apr. 2017, 02.04 skrev Leila Zia <le...@wikimedia.org>:
>
> > Hi John,
> >
> > This may be of interest to you:
> >
> > We are working on building recommendation systems than can help editors
> > identify how to expand already existing articles in Wikipedia. This
> > includes but is not limited to identifying what sections are missing from
> > an article, what citations, what images, infobox information, etc. This
> is
> > research in its early days, if you'd like to follow up with it please
> visit
> >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Expanding_Wikipedia
> _stubs_across_languages
> >
> > Best,
> > Leila
> >
> >
> > Leila Zia
> > Senior Research Scientist
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 2:50 PM, John Erling Blad <jeb...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Are anyone doing any work on automated quality assurance of articles?
> Not
> > > the ORES-stuff, that is about creating hints from measured features.
> I'm
> > > thinking about verifying existence and completeness of citations, and
> > > structure of logical arguments.
> > >
> > > John
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@l

[Wikimedia-l] Why We Read Wikipedia in your language

[Leila Zia]

Hi all,

==Background==
In November 2016, I presented the result of a joint research that
helped us understand English Wikipedia readers better. (Presentation
at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIaMuWA84bY ). I talked about how
we used English, Persian, and Spanish Wikipedia readers' inputs to
build a taxonomy of Wikipedia use-cases along several dimensions,
capturing users’ motivations to visit Wikipedia, the depth of
knowledge they are seeking, and their knowledge of the topic of
interest prior to visiting Wikipedia. I also talked about the results
of the study we did to quantify the prevalence of these use-cases via
a large-scale user survey conducted on English Wikipedia. In that
study, we also matched survey responses to the respondents’ digital
traces in Wikipedia’s server logs which enabled us in discovering
behavioral patterns associated with specific use-cases. You can read
the full study at https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.05379 .

==What do we want to do now?==
There are quite a few directions this research can continue on, and
the most immediate one is to understand whether the results that we
observe (in English Wikipeida) is robust across languages/cultures.
For this, we are going to repeat the study, but this time in more
languages. Here are the languages on our list: Arabic, Dutch, English,
Hindi, Japanese, Spanish (thanks to all the volunteers who have been
helping us translating all survey related documents to these
languages.:)

==What about your language?==
If your language is not one of the six languages above and you'd like
to learn about the readers of Wikipedia in it (in the specific ways
described above), please get back to me by Monday, April 24, AoE. I
cannot guarantee that we can run the study in your language, however,
I guarantee that we will give it a good try if you're interested. The
decision to include more languages will depend on: our capacity to do
the analysis, the speed at which your community can help us translate
the material to the language, the traffic to that language, a couple
of sentences on how you'd think the result can help your community,
and your willingness to help us document the results for your language
at 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reader_Behaviour
(Quite some work will need to go to have readable/usable
documentations available and we are too small to be able to guarantee
that on our own for many languages.)

Best,
Leila

--
Leila Zia
Senior Research Scientist
Wikimedia Foundation

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality assurance of articles

[Leila Zia]

Hi Gerard,

We're diverging from the initial thread. I'll respond to one point, we
should take the rest of the discussion somewhere else. :)

On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> wrote:

>
> So yes, your approach is good but like the translation tool it relies on
> English content.


​No. The approach and implementation is from any language to any language.
You can play with a very simplified version of the recommendations​ at
https://recommend.wmflabs.org/. You can choose any language as source or
destination.

Best,
Leila



> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
>
>
> On 17 April 2017 at 18:40, Leila Zia <le...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> > Hoi Gerard,
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > When you analyse articles and find that some things are missing, it
> will
> > > help a lot when you can target these articles to the people who are
> > likely
> > > interested. When people interested in soccer learn that a soccer player
> > > died, they are more likely to edit even write an article.
> > >
> >
> > ​You are absolutely right. This is what we even tested in the article
> > creation recommendation experiment and you could see that providing
> > personalized recommendations (where personalization was on the basis of
> > matching editors interests based on their history of contributions​) does
> > better than random important recommendations. A few pointers for you:
> >
> > * Check out section 2.3 of the paper at https://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.
> > 03235.pdf to
> > see how this was done.
> > * I talk briefly about how we do the editor interest modeling at
> > https://youtu.be/lHbnvRwFC_A?t=20m44s
> >
> > In general, we have at least two ways for recommending to people what
> they
> > like to edit: one would be using the information in their past edit
> history
> > and building topical models that can help us learn what topics an editor
> is
> > interested in. The other is by asking the editor to provide some seeds of
> > interest to us. For example, we ask you to tell us what kind of article
> you
> > would edit, and we give you recommendations similar to the seed you
> > provide. Each have its own advantages and you sometimes have to mix the
> two
> > approaches (and more) to give the editor enough breadth and depth of
> topics
> > to choose from.
> >
> >
> > > The approach for finding a subject that could do with more attention is
> > one
> > > I applaud. When you want to do this across languages think Wikidata to
> > > define the area of interest for users. It will always include all the
> > > articles in all the languages. As you have seen with the Listeria
> lists,
> > > showing red links and Wikidata items is trivial.
> > >
> >
> > ​Yes, finding what is missing in a Wikipedia language by comparing
> language
> > editions is relatively easy, thanks to Wikidata. :) What is hard is
> ranking
> > these millions of missing articles in any language based on some notion
> of
> > importance. We developed a ranking system for the research I mentioned
> > above. You can read about it in Section 2.2 of the paper at
> > https://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.03235.pdf​. I talk about in less details at
> > https://youtu.be/lHbnvRwFC_A?t=16m58s. In a nutshell: we built a
> > prediction
> > model that aims to predict the number of pageviews the article would
> > receive had it existed in the destination language where it's missing
> > today. The higher this predicted number for a missing article in a
> > language, the more important it is to create it.
> >
> > Best,
> > Leila
> >
> >
> >
> > > Thanks,
> > >  Gerard
> > >
> > > On 17 April 2017 at 02:04, Leila Zia <le...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi John,
> > > >
> > > > This may be of interest to you:
> > > >
> > > > We are working on building recommendation systems than can help
> editors
> > > > identify how to expand already existing articles in Wikipedia. This
> > > > includes but is not limited to identifying what sections are missing
> > from
> > > > an article, what citations, what images, infobox information, etc.
> This
> > > is
> > > > research in its early days, if you'd like to follow up with it please
> > > vi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why We Read Wikipedia in your language

[Leila Zia]

On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 6:06 AM, Amir E. Aharoni
 wrote:
> Is there anything that interested volunteers can start translating now?

:)

For some languages, I can confirm in the next 12 hours if we can run
the surveys in, in which case I'll ping the point of contact (which is
at the moment, the person who has requested that language) in the
following page:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reader_Behaviour/Robustness_across_languages

(The table is not complete, I'm working on it now.)

For some other languages, I may have to wait until Monday late evening
UTC before I can say anything since I may need to brainstorm more with
the other researchers in the team. (I want to make sure we don't ask
for help with translation unless we are pretty sure the language is
feasible for this kind of study).

Leila


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why We Read Wikipedia in your language

[Leila Zia]

yeah, sorry, antanana and Amir: a better communication channel re
sign-ups would be better. Emailing on this thread or off-list to me
works. I'm keeping track of languages requested and I'll contact the
person who requests them to figure out the next steps no later than
Tuesday.

L


On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:25 AM, attolippip <attolip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> and Ukrainian :) and per Amir about instructions
>
> Best regards,
> antanana
>
> 2017-04-21 20:03 GMT+03:00 Amir E. Aharoni <amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il>:
>
>> If I want this done for Hebrew and Russian, do I just reply to this thread?
>> Or did I miss the instructions in the first email? :)
>>
>> בתאריך 21 באפר׳ 2017 19:46,‏ "Leila Zia" <le...@wikimedia.org> כתב:
>>
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > ==Background==
>> > In November 2016, I presented the result of a joint research that
>> > helped us understand English Wikipedia readers better. (Presentation
>> > at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIaMuWA84bY ). I talked about how
>> > we used English, Persian, and Spanish Wikipedia readers' inputs to
>> > build a taxonomy of Wikipedia use-cases along several dimensions,
>> > capturing users’ motivations to visit Wikipedia, the depth of
>> > knowledge they are seeking, and their knowledge of the topic of
>> > interest prior to visiting Wikipedia. I also talked about the results
>> > of the study we did to quantify the prevalence of these use-cases via
>> > a large-scale user survey conducted on English Wikipedia. In that
>> > study, we also matched survey responses to the respondents’ digital
>> > traces in Wikipedia’s server logs which enabled us in discovering
>> > behavioral patterns associated with specific use-cases. You can read
>> > the full study at https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.05379 .
>> >
>> > ==What do we want to do now?==
>> > There are quite a few directions this research can continue on, and
>> > the most immediate one is to understand whether the results that we
>> > observe (in English Wikipeida) is robust across languages/cultures.
>> > For this, we are going to repeat the study, but this time in more
>> > languages. Here are the languages on our list: Arabic, Dutch, English,
>> > Hindi, Japanese, Spanish (thanks to all the volunteers who have been
>> > helping us translating all survey related documents to these
>> > languages.:)
>> >
>> > ==What about your language?==
>> > If your language is not one of the six languages above and you'd like
>> > to learn about the readers of Wikipedia in it (in the specific ways
>> > described above), please get back to me by Monday, April 24, AoE. I
>> > cannot guarantee that we can run the study in your language, however,
>> > I guarantee that we will give it a good try if you're interested. The
>> > decision to include more languages will depend on: our capacity to do
>> > the analysis, the speed at which your community can help us translate
>> > the material to the language, the traffic to that language, a couple
>> > of sentences on how you'd think the result can help your community,
>> > and your willingness to help us document the results for your language
>> > at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Characterizing_
>> > Wikipedia_Reader_Behaviour
>> > (Quite some work will need to go to have readable/usable
>> > documentations available and we are too small to be able to guarantee
>> > that on our own for many languages.)
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > Leila
>> >
>> > --
>> > Leila Zia
>> > Senior Research Scientist
>> > Wikimedia Foundation
>> >
>> > ___
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=uns

Re: [Wikimedia-l] March 2: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#9)

[Leila Zia]

Hi,

Rogol and team: Let's try to keep the email threads focused on their
immediate topics. Katherine's email is an email to provide update about
specifics of the strategy process at this point. There is quite a bit of
content in her email that can be discussed in this thread or in the
corresponding meta pages. Let's try to keep this thread focused on the
items that are relevant to the original email and refrain from branching to
other topics. This, among other things, can help the audience of this list
with discoverability of relevant content and discussions later on.

Thanks,
Leila

Leila Zia
Senior Research Scientist
Wikimedia Foundation

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 12:46 AM, Joseph Seddon <jsed...@wikimedia.org>
wrote:

> And define "associated with".
>
> George W. Bush, the 43rd U.S. President is 8th cousin to Bill Gates for
> example (apparently)
>
> Seddon
>
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Could anyone name major donors or consultants to the Wikimedia Foundation
> > who are associated with, or open supporters of, –
> >
> > 1. the United States' Republican party?
> > 2. a major conservative, or at least slightly right-of-centre, party in
> any
> > other country?
> >
> >
> >  On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Amir E. Aharoni <
> > amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:
> >
> > > This makes me want to ask the following: Do we have any professional
> > > advisors who are experienced with working with places outside of the
> five
> > > largest English-speaking countries?
> > >
> > > (It's quite possible that this was already answered in other emails,
> and
> > I
> > > apologize if I missed it.)
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Seddon
>
> *Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)*
> *Wikimedia Foundation*
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

[Leila Zia]

Hi Gerard,

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Facts, sources do not take sides. When Wikipedia has to write articles
> differently to accomodate alternative facts we have a serious problem.
>

It's not as clear cut as you say it here. :) A couple of things to share:

* Sources/references may take sides. In Wikipedia, many editors have
decided that they want to express all "claims" as long as they are
supported by references/sources (with some constraints on the references).
This is true in at least one other project: in Wikidata, you have the
notion of provenance which means potentially contradicting statements can
exist at the same time. This is a good thing, for many reasons, one of
which is that it empowers people to see many sides and educate themselves.

* In a world in which many of your questions have a clear and direct answer
(at least on the surface) offered to you by a quick search, a project such
as Wikipedia is admired by at least some of our readers as a place to
explore, learn, dig deeper. What we have learned is that 25% of English
Wikipedia readers read Wikipedia for intrinsic learning, 20% read it
because they are bored (some percentage can be common between these two
categories). These people spend more time on each page than the other
motivation groups, they seem to be reading more than just a few
sentences.[1] Wikipedia is one of the very few places left on the web for
deep learning, thinking, seeing all sides and all views, and forming an
opinion the way /you/ as an individual see things, after learning about all
sides. This is very empowering and something to protect.[2]

Leila


[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.05379
[2] As you may know, as an Iranian living in the U.S., me and my family are
heavily affected by the recent political changes. I sympathize with all of
you, who like me, are affected, but that's outside of the scope of this
thread and maybe something to chat more about in an upcoming event when we
meet in person. :)


> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
>
> Op do 2 mrt. 2017 om 16:17 schreef Mz7 Wikipedia 
>
> > I don’t think any of us are arguing we should “ignore politics” (that is
> > to say, try to avoid mentioning it or referring to it whenever possible).
> > One of our values as a movement is recognizing that there are many
> > different perspectives on many different issues (which is one of the
> things
> > I think  Synthesis>
> > is trying to get at). Our goal is neither to ignore nor to engage in
> > politics, or even to declare what the “truth” is, but to *explain* the
> > politics and to explain what different people think the truth is.
> >
> > The Annual Report fails to capitalize on this idea. It attempts to do so,
> > I think, with headings like “Providing Context Amid Complexity”, and the
> > letters from Katherine Maher and Jimmy Wales. But one-liners like “2016
> was
> > the hottest year on record” are exactly the kind of things that may sound
> > good on the surface, but they do not nearly capture the “context amid
> > complexity" of the issue at hand. For example, “half of refugees are
> > school-age” isn’t significant to someone who already recognizes the
> refugee
> > crisis’s impact on families, but is concerned about, say, the effects of
> > taking in refugees on a nation’s economy.
> >
> > We need a change in tone. Instead of selecting one-liner facts, we need
> to
> > find a way to convey the idea that the Wikimedia movement values the
> > diversity of opinions, that we value working together to understand each
> > others’ opinions and present them fairly. One thing that comes to mind
> for
> > me is linking directly to the Wikipedia articles about these issues. If
> > Wikipedia is truly the place that is "there when you need factual
> > information, not opinion or advocacy” [1], why not show it off?
> >
> > In any case, it helps to reiterate that “Articles must not take sides,
> but
> > should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies
> > to both what you say and how you say it.” [2]
> >
> > Mz7
> >
> > [1] https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/jimmy-wales-letter.html
> > [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view (“this
> > page in a nutshell”)
> >
> > > On Mar 2, 2017, at 8:30 AM, Peter Southwood <
> > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > It is not possible to get away from politics while remaining in contact
> > with civilisation. Politics follows you around. It is possible to ignore
> > politics only until they affect you directly.
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of WereSpielChequers
> > > Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2017 2:33 PM
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"
> > >
> > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2014–16 audit of the WMF communications strategy

[Leila Zia]

Hi Rogol,

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Leila,
>
> I am sorry to hear that your management have not seen fit to allow you the
> ​
> time to read this report since it is on a topic that is key to work that
> you do.


​This is not a concern on my end. Time, whether it's paid or not, is very
limited and being informed when spending it is a good practice. :)


> But I think the underlying suggestion that Andreas or non-staff
> readers should identify ways in which this report has changed WMF practices
> is
> ​​
> disingenuous.


​It wasn't a suggestion but a question, also the question was to Andreas or
anyone else reading this list/email which includes staff members.

I also consider a label such as "
​
disingenuous" disrespectful and am not interested in continuing this line
of conversation.

Best,
Leila



> "Rogol"
>
> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Leila Zia <le...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi Andreas,
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 3:59 AM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I found some of the audit's recommendations troubling, and have
> > summarised
> > > my concerns on the related talk page on Meta.[3]
> > >
> >
> > ​I would love to find some time to go over the audit (67 pages) and your
> > comments/thoughts and share mine. However, given that this will require
> > substantial amount of time, I'm wondering if you or anyone else has a
> good
> > sense of areas that Wikimedia Foundation has decided to change its best
> > practices based on the audit notes. I'm assuming that receiving
> > recommendations for change doesn't mean that all recommendations are
> going
> > to go into effect, the teams usually spend a lot of care in implementing
> > changes considering the mission and their field knowledge of our
> Movement.
> > :) If we know which parts of the report Communications team has decided
> to
> > act on, then we won't spend our time on things that we already agree on.
> :)
> >
> > I'm also wondering: Given that a Chief Communications Officer is to be
> > hired whether it's more productive to delay spending more time on this
> kind
> > of document until after this person is in office and we know more what
> > their vision/direction is.
> >
> > (and as you may know by now: I have not followed discussions on this
> topic
> > before, my apologies if this is already addressed as part of the previous
> > conversations.)
> >
> > Best,
> > Leila
> >
> > ​p.s. and you know this but for others: I'm in Research at Wikimedia
> > Foundation. I'm interested in this topic as communications is key for
> > surfacing the work I do as part of my responsibilities. I'm not talking
> on
> > behalf of Wikimedia Foundation or Communications team.​ :)
> >
> >
> >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Andreas
> > >
> > > [1]
> > > https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediaweekly/
> > > permalink/1366566440057850/
> > > [2]
> > > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/4/4a/
> > > Wikimedia_Foundation_communications_audit_-_2014-2016.pdf
> > > [3]
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/
> > Wikimedia_Foundation_
> > > messaging_strategy#Comments_on_the_2014.E2.80.9316_
> communications_audit
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2014–16 audit of the WMF communications strategy

[Leila Zia]

Hi Andreas,

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 3:59 AM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> I found some of the audit's recommendations troubling, and have summarised
> my concerns on the related talk page on Meta.[3]
>

​I would love to find some time to go over the audit (67 pages) and your
comments/thoughts and share mine. However, given that this will require
substantial amount of time, I'm wondering if you or anyone else has a good
sense of areas that Wikimedia Foundation has decided to change its best
practices based on the audit notes. I'm assuming that receiving
recommendations for change doesn't mean that all recommendations are going
to go into effect, the teams usually spend a lot of care in implementing
changes considering the mission and their field knowledge of our Movement.
:) If we know which parts of the report Communications team has decided to
act on, then we won't spend our time on things that we already agree on. :)

I'm also wondering: Given that a Chief Communications Officer is to be
hired whether it's more productive to delay spending more time on this kind
of document until after this person is in office and we know more what
their vision/direction is.

(and as you may know by now: I have not followed discussions on this topic
before, my apologies if this is already addressed as part of the previous
conversations.)

Best,
Leila

​p.s. and you know this but for others: I'm in Research at Wikimedia
Foundation. I'm interested in this topic as communications is key for
surfacing the work I do as part of my responsibilities. I'm not talking on
behalf of Wikimedia Foundation or Communications team.​ :)



> Cheers,
> Andreas
>
> [1]
> https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediaweekly/
> permalink/1366566440057850/
> [2]
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/4/4a/
> Wikimedia_Foundation_communications_audit_-_2014-2016.pdf
> [3]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_Foundation_
> messaging_strategy#Comments_on_the_2014.E2.80.9316_communications_audit
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why We Read Wikipedia in your language

[Leila Zia]

Hi all,

[This is likely my last update here until after the study is done and we
have results to share.]

Thank you for all the responses on and off-list and the work some of you
have already started doing. :) We have requests by 10 more languages
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reader_Behaviour/Robustness_across_languages#What_other_languages_to_run_the_surveys_in.3F>.
At this point, we're going to focus on these requests to get as many of
them as possible ready. The work involves the translation of the content by
those who have volunteered, one-on-one meetings with those who translated
the content to make sure the intents of the research is preserved in the
translated content, computing sampling rates for each language, testing the
surveys and the infrastructure to make sure data collection happens as
planned, reviewing the research questions (now that we have many more
languages, we may have an opportunity to ask and answer a couple of more
questions), and likely more. :)

We are aiming to launch this study early next week. Notices to the
corresponding Village pumps will go out no later than 2 days prior to the
launch.

Thanks to all the volunteers who stepped up to make it happen in their
languages, our collaborators in EPFL, GESIS, and Stanford, and the Reading
team. :)

Best,
Leila


--
Leila Zia
Senior Research Scientist
Wikimedia Foundation

On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Leila Zia <le...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 6:06 AM, Amir E. Aharoni
> <amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:
> > Is there anything that interested volunteers can start translating now?
>
> :)
>
> For some languages, I can confirm in the next 12 hours if we can run
> the surveys in, in which case I'll ping the point of contact (which is
> at the moment, the person who has requested that language) in the
> following page:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Characterizing_Wikipedia_
> Reader_Behaviour/Robustness_across_languages
>
> (The table is not complete, I'm working on it now.)
>
> For some other languages, I may have to wait until Monday late evening
> UTC before I can say anything since I may need to brainstorm more with
> the other researchers in the team. (I want to make sure we don't ask
> for help with translation unless we are pretty sure the language is
> feasible for this kind of study).
>
> Leila
>
>
> >
> > --
> > Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
> > http://aharoni.wordpress.com
> > ‪“We're living in pieces,
> > I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why We Read Wikipedia in your language

[Leila Zia]

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 7:03 PM, Amir E. Aharoni
<amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:
>
> If I want this done for Hebrew and Russian, do I just reply to this thread?


[Amir, you are aware of this but I'm hoping by saying it here we can
change the outcome.]

At the moment, all text is translated to Russian but we don't have any
volunteer as a point of contact for Russian Wikipedia. The PoC is
needed to communicate the notifications from us to the ruwiki
community and also transfer anything we should know from that
community back to us. I have made having a PoC a (soft?) requirement
for running the survey in a language. If you are from ruwiki and you'd
like to be the PoC, please ping me immediately (I expect up to 3 hours
of your time to be spent in the next 2 months).

If we don't find a PoC in the next 12 hours or so, we will need to
make a call whether to run in ruwiki or not. I'd love for us to run
the survey in ruwiki, especially as volunteers have already spent time
and care on the translations and there is little we (the broader
Wikimedia community) know about ruwiki. :)

Here is the list of languages and their PoCs, if you're curious:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reader_Behaviour/Robustness_across_languages#Participating_languages

Best,
Leila

>
> בתאריך 21 באפר׳ 2017 19:46,‏ "Leila Zia" <le...@wikimedia.org> כתב:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > ==Background==
> > In November 2016, I presented the result of a joint research that
> > helped us understand English Wikipedia readers better. (Presentation
> > at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIaMuWA84bY ). I talked about how
> > we used English, Persian, and Spanish Wikipedia readers' inputs to
> > build a taxonomy of Wikipedia use-cases along several dimensions,
> > capturing users’ motivations to visit Wikipedia, the depth of
> > knowledge they are seeking, and their knowledge of the topic of
> > interest prior to visiting Wikipedia. I also talked about the results
> > of the study we did to quantify the prevalence of these use-cases via
> > a large-scale user survey conducted on English Wikipedia. In that
> > study, we also matched survey responses to the respondents’ digital
> > traces in Wikipedia’s server logs which enabled us in discovering
> > behavioral patterns associated with specific use-cases. You can read
> > the full study at https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.05379 .
> >
> > ==What do we want to do now?==
> > There are quite a few directions this research can continue on, and
> > the most immediate one is to understand whether the results that we
> > observe (in English Wikipeida) is robust across languages/cultures.
> > For this, we are going to repeat the study, but this time in more
> > languages. Here are the languages on our list: Arabic, Dutch, English,
> > Hindi, Japanese, Spanish (thanks to all the volunteers who have been
> > helping us translating all survey related documents to these
> > languages.:)
> >
> > ==What about your language?==
> > If your language is not one of the six languages above and you'd like
> > to learn about the readers of Wikipedia in it (in the specific ways
> > described above), please get back to me by Monday, April 24, AoE. I
> > cannot guarantee that we can run the study in your language, however,
> > I guarantee that we will give it a good try if you're interested. The
> > decision to include more languages will depend on: our capacity to do
> > the analysis, the speed at which your community can help us translate
> > the material to the language, the traffic to that language, a couple
> > of sentences on how you'd think the result can help your community,
> > and your willingness to help us document the results for your language
> > at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Characterizing_
> > Wikipedia_Reader_Behaviour
> > (Quite some work will need to go to have readable/usable
> > documentations available and we are too small to be able to guarantee
> > that on our own for many languages.)
> >
> > Best,
> > Leila
> >
> > --
> > Leila Zia
> > Senior Research Scientist
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l 

[Wikimedia-l] Videos of sessions at Vienna Hackathon and WikiCite

[Leila Zia]

Hi all,

I could not make it to Vienna for the Hackathon [1] and WikiCite [2]
and I was happy to see that Andrew Lih has been doing some serious
recordings [3] of the sessions. I watched the Showcase Talks [4] from
the third day of the Hackathon which gave a nice overview of
everything that had happened there. Sharing the links here in case
some of you are interested to watch them as well.

Thanks, Andrew! :)

Best,
Leila

--
Leila Zia
Senior Research Scientist
Wikimedia Foundation

[1]
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Hackathon_2017
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiCite_2017
[3]
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLN4mEhpy3b8RsYfokuzsBGnw-_KVDSfX_
[4]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQDSd9ewjSw=3=PLN4mEhpy3b8RsYfokuzsBGnw-_KVDSfX_

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikidata] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

[Leila Zia]

[I'm writing in my personal capacity.]

Hi Mathieu,

On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 2:45 AM, mathieu stumpf guntz <
psychosl...@culture-libre.org> wrote:

>
>
> Le 01/12/2017 à 09:34, Markus Kroetzsch a écrit :
>
> Dear Mathieu,
>
> You are in an impossible position. Either you want to be an objective
> researcher who tries to reconstruct past events as they happened, or you
> are pursuing an agenda to criticise and change some aspects of Wikidata.
> The way you do it, you are making yourself part of the debate that you
> claim you want to reconstruct.
>
> Well, I guess this is a dilemma that many sociologists and anthropologists
> have to deal with. That's a really hard epistemic problem you are raising
> here, and I don't think this list is the place to discuss it extensively.
> So to make it short, I fully agree that your concern is legitimate, but if
> your implied conclusion is that it would be better to do nothing rather
> than going into a difficult epistemic position, I don't share this
> conclusion.
>

​You can do both, but these will be two separate efforts and you need to be
clear to your audience which hat you have on when you're writing your
messages. At the moment, the messages come across with mixed signals which
makes it really hard to understand what is your goal. FYI: Here is what I
have heard so far on this thread from you:
(i) I want to do research to understand how the decision about CC0 was made.
(ii) I demand transparency: You need to answer my questions since
transparency is important for us and I have the right to ask about any
topic and demand more explanation until my satisfaction.
(iii) I am pretty skeptical about the way CC0 was chosen as a license for
Wikidata, and I'm going to dig deep (casually, and not
methodically/systematically) to figure out what's going on.
​
​If you're doing (i):
We count you as a researcher and you are asked to follow research norms. In
this case, I recommend that you open a research page on
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Index , clearly state what the
problem is, why it's important to solve it, what methods have been used in
the past (literature review) and why they are not enough, what is your
methodology, how are you planning to do data collection (for example, will
there be interviews? if yes, how are you going to handle the data
collected?), results (when they become available), discussion (how you do
or don't handle bias in data collection, where you think your study can be
improved, ...). Once you have that page up, others may join to help you
improve your research methodology and analysis before embarking on the
actual research.

If you're doing (ii):
Be aware: all of us have to make trade-offs between documentation, spending
time on building history, and getting the volunteer/staff work ahead of us
done. This is especially true for volunteer projects (which is how Wikidata
was initiated). Someone spending time on documentation may mean the project
not moving forward, literally. On this front: If you demand transparency
and you make documentation a requirement for transparency, you will likely
have to work hard to bring more volunteer resources to this community to
help us document better/more, and also work with us to create ways for
doing documentation without disrupting current workflows as much as
possible. This is a long-term discussion, it needs months/years of planning
and execution to expand a capacity that is heavily under-resourced in our
Movement.

If you're doing (iii):
I highly recommend that you start small, even more private, in the future.
You are exposing quite a few people. You will hurt them less (or not at
all) and still will learn over time. Only if you see strong reasons for
opening up things at the level of this mailing list, I suggest you embark
on journeys like the one you're on now.

I tend to agree with Markus that you are in a very difficult place now: you
have communicated mixed signals, some people are hurt, and you need to
spend a lot of time and resources on your end and theirs (if they're
willing to), to start from scratch. In practice, you may be better off
letting this conversation go and allowing others to pick it up and build it
on a clearer base.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikidata] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

[Leila Zia]

[I apologize for the longish response, and I will do what I can to take the
rest of this offlist as needed. I just see a couple of places where I need
to add more explanation.]

On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 10:31 PM, mathieu stumpf guntz <
psychosl...@culture-libre.org> wrote:

> Hi Leila,
>
> First, thank you for your clear analyze and suggestions.
>
> I won't respond extensively on list about this thread anymore for now.
>
> So to your reply, I will just make a single point more clear, and take the
> rest in consideration off list.
>
> Le 01/12/2017 à 22:49, Leila Zia a écrit :
>
> (ii) I demand transparency: You need to answer my questions since
> transparency is important for us and I have the right to ask about any
> topic and demand more explanation until my satisfaction.
>
> Once again, this is not about "I, me and my". Transparency is a core value
> of *our* Wikimedia movement. So the question is not to reach my
> satifaction, but the level of transparency which is expected in the
> Wikimedia movement.
>

​(​Side-note. We should take this part offline but for the record: I
couldn't find a place where transparency was listed as an agreed upon and
shared value of our movement as a whole. There are subgroups that consider
it a core value or one of the guiding principles, and it's of course built
in in many of the things we do in Wikimedia, but I'm hesitant to call it /a
core value of our movement/ given that it's not listed somewhere as such.
btw, for the record, it's high on my personal and professional list of
values.)

​While I agree that transparency is a value for many of us, it is not very
clear, to at least me, how we as a whole define transparency to the level
that can be used in practice. In the absence of a shared practical
definition for transparency, each of us (or groups of us) define a process
as transparent as a function of how big/impactful the result of a process
is at each point in time, our backgrounds/cultures/countries-we're-from,
how much personal trust we have in the process or the people involved in
the process, etc. If this is correct, this means that in practice we as
individuals or groups define what transparency means for us and we will
demand specific things based on our own definition. So, while in theory you
are requesting/demanding something that is likely a shared value for many
of us, in practice, you are entering your own checklist (that may be shared
with some other people's view on transparency in a specific case) that once
met, you will call the process transparent. That's why I interpreted what I
heard from you as "I" demand transparency, versus "we, as a movement"
demand transparency in this case.

To give you a more specific example: as an Iranian involved in Wikimedia
movement who knows Markus through his contributions to Wikidata and at a
professional/work level, I trusted Markus' words when he said that those in
early stages of the project didn't think of Wikidata as a project that one
day becomes as big as it is today. I believe it that this was a fun project
that they wanted to see succeed, but they were not sure at all if it gets
somewhere, so the natural thing to do for them was to spend time to see if
they can help it take off at all as opposed to spending time on documenting
decisions in case it takes off and they need to show to people how they
have done things. If trust between Markus and I were broken, however, I
would likely not be content with that level of response and I would
ask/demand for more explanation. In case (ii), and in the absence of a
shared practical definition of transparency, my personal priors and
understandings of the case would define when I call the process transparent.


> As far as I'm aware, this level is nothing like "a right for any
> individual to ask full transparency on any topic at whichever level it
> wants". This is just broad unfair generalization of what I said. I never
> demanded such an extensive transparency level, and I actually would raise
> against such a demand more vigorously than what I'm doing here in favor of
> more transparency on a scoped issue.
>
> My demand is on a scoped topic which, to my mind, is of deep importance
> for the general governance of the movement and its future as a whole. So if
> that is asking too much information, then yes it can be stated that I was
> wrong in my view regarding the expected level of transparency our community
> is demanding on its governance. Or maybe it's the importance of the topic
> and its impact that I'm miss-evaluating.
>
> I recognize I'm all but perfect, I do mistakes, and the form of my message
> was a terrible one. Exaggeratedly generalized interpretation of a
> transparency demand is however not a proper way to discard the underlying
> issue.
>

​Point taken. Those 3 categories and descriptions a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Invitation to the Wikimedia Foundation May 2018 Metrics & Activities Meeting: Thursday, May 31, 18:00 UTC

[Leila Zia]

On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 5:08 AM, L3X1 en <enl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What is the YouTube link, or is it not yet available? Thanks

I'm looking at 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_metrics_and_activities_meetings
and I see this YouTube link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOaiU-v7PbE

Best,
Leila

--
Leila Zia
Senior Research Scientist, Lead
Wikimedia Foundation

>> On May 24, 2018, at 6:15 PM, Lena Traer <ltr...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> The next Wikimedia Foundation metrics and activities meeting will take
>> place on Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 6:00 PM UTC (11 AM PDT). The IRC channel
>> is #wikimedia-office on https://webchat.freenode.net, and the meeting will
>> be broadcast as a live YouTube stream.[1] We’ll post the video recording
>> publicly after the meeting.
>>
>> During the May 2018 meeting, we will hear about languages across the
>> Wikimedia projects.
>>
>> Meeting agenda:
>>
>> * Welcome and introduction
>> * Movement update
>> * The Compact Language Links project
>> * Executive update
>> * Questions and discussion
>> * Wikilove
>>
>> Please review the meeting's Meta-Wiki page for further information about
>> the meeting and how to participate:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_metrics_and_activities_meetings
>>
>> You can also sign up to participate in future meetings on Meta-Wiki:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_metrics_and_activities_meetings/Future_meetings
>>
>> June 2018 Metrics & Activities meeting will take place on Thursday, 28
>> June, starting at 6:00 PM UTC (11 AM Pacific Daylight Time).
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Lena
>>
>> [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOaiU-v7PbE
>>
>> Lena Traer
>> Project Coordinator // Communications // Advancement
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RFC on wikimedia-l posting limits

[Leila Zia]

[writing at personal capacity.]

On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 2:55 PM, Joseph Seddon 
wrote:

> The question is, does it need a successor?
>

Whether mailing list is a good option for the kind of discussions we have
in wikimedia-l is not clear to me, however, the list is serving some
purposes and we need to make decisions about how those purposes will be
served if the list is removed. On a personal and professional level, this
list has helped me:

* find a social side to Wikimedia: When I joined WMF as a staff member four
years ago, I pretty much knew no one. Keeping an eye on this list has
helped me over the years to find a base beyond WMF staff that I know and I
can have volunteer, staff, or personal relations with. This is invaluable.
:)

* learn about Wikimedia's governance: again, for a newcomer like myself, it
was invaluable to be exposed to many different voices, opinions,
backgrounds, perspectives, etc. in one place.

* learn about the different projects going on around the Movement.

* find people who are interested to work with me in the research projects I
do at staff time.

This being said, I'm all for rethinking how we as a Movement communicate,
for what purpose, and what kind of technologies can help us do that more
efficiently and effectively.

Leila



>
> Seddon
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 10:42 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>
> > For some time there have been periodic mentions of the idea of moving
> > Wikimedia-l to Discourse. [0]
> >
> > I am considering establishing a Discourse installation myself and
> offering
> > it to host Wikimedia-l or its successor, which in addition to potential
> > usability improvements from Discourse would have the added benefit that
> it
> > would not be hosted on a WMF server and therefore would be somewhat
> > insulated from governance controversies at WMF such as we have
> experienced
> > in the past and such as the one recently experienced by WMFR. However, I
> am
> > concerned that I would be unable to provide sufficient legal protections
> > for the privacy of the list and its members, so I have not initiated this
> > project.
> >
> > I think that a good first order of business would be for someone to close
> > the existing RfC on Meta. After that RfC is closed I think that we should
> > have further discussions about how we might like to continue to adjust
> our
> > communications on Wikimedia-l or its successor.
> >
> > I am currently limiting myself to approximately 15 posts per month until
> > the RfC is closed.
> >
> > Pine
> > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> >
> > [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_(software)
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Seddon
>
> *Community and Audience Engagement Associate*
> *Advancement (Fundraising), Wikimedia Foundation*
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why We Read Wikipedia in your language

[Leila Zia]

Hi all,

Update time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why We Read Wikipedia in your language

[Leila Zia]

Hi all,

We are ready to share the result of the first part of the study for
the 14 languages that participated in the survey with you. To recap:
the goal of the first part of the study was to compute the prevalence
of the use-cases of Wikipedia across the 14 languages, basically,
generating plots similar to Figure 2 in our earlier research [0] for
these languages. What took most of our time was the debiasing step we
had to take for every language and triple-checking the results to make
sure we didn't make a mistake. You can read more about this first part
at the blog post we just published [1] and on meta [2].

What's left? A lot! :) We took one big step to make sense of the data,
but there is a lot left. We have now entered the second phase of the
study during which we will try to do a deeper analysis to characterize
readers by survey response type across as many languages as we can.
The higher the number of survey responses from a language, the higher
the chances for us to be able to get good results in this phase. We
expect to be able to do this deeper analysis in around 5 languages,
maybe more. We will let you know once we know more about this part.

This is a good opportunity for me to thank many of you who have made
this research possible. Many colleagues at Wikimedia Foundation
stepped up and helped us in every step of the way, thanks to all of
you. I specifically want to call out the work that the points of
contacts and volunteers put to help us run the survey in your
languages [3] and to our formal collaborators Bob West (EPFL,
User:Cervisiarius) and Florian Lemmerich (RWTH Aachen University,
User:Flemmerich) who have been working in this area of research, truly
tirelessly. Florian had a lot of sleepless nights to prepare these
results.

If you have questions or comments, you know where to find us: IRC
channel #wikimedia-research on freenode (look for leila or lzia), the
discussion page where we document things, etc. Your role is key now.
Please look at the results in your languages, ponder on them, and tell
us if you see interesting patterns that we have missed and we should
consider digging deeper in and making sense of. And, please enjoy
using this data for your language. We stand behind these results [4].

Best,
Leila

[0] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1702.05379.pdf
[1] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2018/03/15/why-the-world-reads-wikipedia/
[2] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reader_Behaviour/Robustness_across_languages
[3] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reader_Behaviour/Robustness_across_languages#Participating_languages
[4] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reader_Behaviour/Robustness_across_languages#Results

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 12:28 AM, Amir E. Aharoni
<amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:
> OK, I did it :)
>
> I don't write in the Russian Wikipedia as much as I do in Hebrew and
> English, but it should be OK.
>
>
> --
> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
> http://aharoni.wordpress.com
> ‪“We're living in pieces,
> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
>
> 2017-06-21 9:57 GMT+03:00 Leila Zia <le...@wikimedia.org>:
>
>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 7:03 PM, Amir E. Aharoni
>> <amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:
>> >
>> > If I want this done for Hebrew and Russian, do I just reply to this
>> thread?
>>
>>
>> [Amir, you are aware of this but I'm hoping by saying it here we can
>> change the outcome.]
>>
>> At the moment, all text is translated to Russian but we don't have any
>> volunteer as a point of contact for Russian Wikipedia. The PoC is
>> needed to communicate the notifications from us to the ruwiki
>> community and also transfer anything we should know from that
>> community back to us. I have made having a PoC a (soft?) requirement
>> for running the survey in a language. If you are from ruwiki and you'd
>> like to be the PoC, please ping me immediately (I expect up to 3 hours
>> of your time to be spent in the next 2 months).
>>
>> If we don't find a PoC in the next 12 hours or so, we will need to
>> make a call whether to run in ruwiki or not. I'd love for us to run
>> the survey in ruwiki, especially as volunteers have already spent time
>> and care on the translations and there is little we (the broader
>> Wikimedia community) know about ruwiki. :)
>>
>> Here is the list of languages and their PoCs, if you're curious:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Characterizing_
>> Wikipedia_Reader_Behaviour/Robustness_across_languages#
>> Participating_languages
>>
>> Best,
>> Leila
>>
>> >
>> > בתאריך 21 באפר׳ 2017 19:46,‏ "Leila Zia" <le...@wikimedia.org> כתב:
>>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why We Read Wikipedia in your language

[Leila Zia]

Hi Frans,

On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 5:59 AM, Frans Grijzenhout <fr...@wikimedia.nl>
wrote:

> Hi Leila, thank you for sharing the results of this important survey. Must
> have been a tremendous job and we are very happy to have this information
> about our readers now available. We will certainly discuss this with the
> Dutch WP community. During this discussion we will of course also focus on
> the difference between WP-NL and some other languages (another valuable
> aspect of this research).
>

​Sure. If you need our help somewhere, please let me know. We're trying to
document everything, including how the results can be read by each
community, but I feel I'm always behind on documentation. :/ If you all run
into questions, just post them in the meta page. I'd also be happy to make
myself available for a call if that helps.

We will keep you posted (through your point of contact) if we learn more
about Dutch Wikipedia readers as we go deeper in analysis.

Best,
Leila



> Thanks again, Frans
>
> *Frans Grijzenhout*, voorzitter / chair
> +31 6 5333 9499
> --
> *Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland*
> Mariaplaats 3  -  3511 LH Utrecht
> Kamer van Koophandel 17189036
> http://www.wikimedia.nl/
>
> 2018-03-15 17:45 GMT+01:00 Leila Zia <le...@wikimedia.org>:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > We are ready to share the result of the first part of the study for
> > the 14 languages that participated in the survey with you. To recap:
> > the goal of the first part of the study was to compute the prevalence
> > of the use-cases of Wikipedia across the 14 languages, basically,
> > generating plots similar to Figure 2 in our earlier research [0] for
> > these languages. What took most of our time was the debiasing step we
> > had to take for every language and triple-checking the results to make
> > sure we didn't make a mistake. You can read more about this first part
> > at the blog post we just published [1] and on meta [2].
> >
> > What's left? A lot! :) We took one big step to make sense of the data,
> > but there is a lot left. We have now entered the second phase of the
> > study during which we will try to do a deeper analysis to characterize
> > readers by survey response type across as many languages as we can.
> > The higher the number of survey responses from a language, the higher
> > the chances for us to be able to get good results in this phase. We
> > expect to be able to do this deeper analysis in around 5 languages,
> > maybe more. We will let you know once we know more about this part.
> >
> > This is a good opportunity for me to thank many of you who have made
> > this research possible. Many colleagues at Wikimedia Foundation
> > stepped up and helped us in every step of the way, thanks to all of
> > you. I specifically want to call out the work that the points of
> > contacts and volunteers put to help us run the survey in your
> > languages [3] and to our formal collaborators Bob West (EPFL,
> > User:Cervisiarius) and Florian Lemmerich (RWTH Aachen University,
> > User:Flemmerich) who have been working in this area of research, truly
> > tirelessly. Florian had a lot of sleepless nights to prepare these
> > results.
> >
> > If you have questions or comments, you know where to find us: IRC
> > channel #wikimedia-research on freenode (look for leila or lzia), the
> > discussion page where we document things, etc. Your role is key now.
> > Please look at the results in your languages, ponder on them, and tell
> > us if you see interesting patterns that we have missed and we should
> > consider digging deeper in and making sense of. And, please enjoy
> > using this data for your language. We stand behind these results [4].
> >
> > Best,
> > Leila
> >
> > [0] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1702.05379.pdf
> > [1] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2018/03/15/why-the-world-reads-wikipedia/
> > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Characterizing_
> > Wikipedia_Reader_Behaviour/Robustness_across_languages
> > [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Characterizing_
> > Wikipedia_Reader_Behaviour/Robustness_across_languages#
> > Participating_languages
> > [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Characterizing_
> > Wikipedia_Reader_Behaviour/Robustness_across_languages#Results
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 12:28 AM, Amir E. Aharoni
> > <amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:
> > > OK, I did it :)
> > >
> > > I don't write in the Russian Wikipedia as much as I do in Hebrew and
> > > English, but it should be OK.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Amir

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Proposal regarding norms for meeting/deadline announcements

[Leila Zia]

I did one pass over the emails in the past two months and I don't see
excessive (the way I understand the word) reminders and announcements
except perhaps for Research Showcase. ;) If that is the only event
that is triggering this conversation, the solution is easy: You can
just tell me your feedback and I'll take it back to the team and we
can most probably update the workflow on our end. (I have a sense that
one email about that event to wikimedia-l is enough and reminders are
not needed.)

If the conversation is about more than one event, yeah, perhaps we
should discuss more. I like the idea of a separate announcement list
but I'm also concerned about making ourselves too thin across many
channels. Maybe we can have a norm that every announcement to
wikimedia-l should have an [announcement] tag in the subject for
people to easily filter out. I personally don't mind the intensity of
announcements as the Mute button in my email client works effectively
(as long as, as Lodewijk said, people don't start new threads.:)

And while we're on the subject of emails: As a member of this list,
what concerns me is the lack of diversity of voices in many instances
and conversations. I would love to learn how we can change this and if
one or more of you are up for helping prepare a survey to run on the
list to learn more, please let me know. (This will be with my
volunteer hat on. and I want to clarify that this needs to be
coordinated with the list moderators.)

Best,
Leila

--
Leila Zia
Senior Research Scientist, Lead
Wikimedia Foundation

On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 4:30 AM Fæ  wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 at 00:34, effe iets anders  
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Pine,
> >
> > I would also suggest not to get overly bureaucratic with this :) If the
> > public meeting you refer to requires a large attendance, the 14 days makes
> > sense for example - but I cannot recall many meetings of that style.
> > Rather, most meetings are either scheduled taking the availability of
> > participants in mind, or it is to get input (where it is more important to
> > have a bunch of people show up, than to have everyone participate).
> >
> > Whether more than one reminder is excessive, is imho quite subjective. I
> > appreciate most reminders, especially if they stick to the same thread.
> >
> > On a side note: are there any weekly meetings being announced on this list?
> > Again, it highly depends on the topic, and whether the reminder may also
> > contain more information.
> >
> > My point? Don't worry about it so much :) Be flexible with this, and go
> > with the flow. People can figure this out quite well if they use their
> > common sense without added bureaucracy.
> >
> > Lodewijk
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 1:50 PM Pine W  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Wikimedia-l and Wikitech-l,
> > >
> > > Keeping in mind the large numbers of subscribers on some Wikimedia email
> > > lists, the endless valuable uses for the time of knowledgeable volunteer
> > > Wikimedians, the significant financial costs for the time of many of the
> > > staff and contractors on these mailing lists, and how packed calendars can
> > > be, I propose that we implement a few social norms/guidelines for
> > > Wikimedia-l and Wikitech-l in particular.
> > >
> > > 1. When planning to have a one-time public meeting, announce it at least 
> > > 14
> > > days in advance to give everyone who might like to participate that much
> > > lead time to clear space on their calendars. Rarely is a one-time public
> > > meeting so urgent that it cannot wait 14 days from the day that it is
> > > announced.
> > >
> > > 2. Send a maximum of one reminder email regarding a one-time public
> > > meeting, and also send a maximum of one reminder email regarding events
> > > with deadlines such as Wikimania scholarship submissions or conference
> > > presentation proposals. More than one reminder about a meeting or deadline
> > > is excessive.
> > >
> > > 3. If extending a deadline, send only an announcement of the extension 
> > > with
> > > no additional reminder.
> > >
> > > 4. Send only one email to announce a recurring weekly meeting, with no
> > > additional reminders. Meetings which recur less often, such as biweekly or
> > > monthly, may continue to be announced with one additional reminder.
> > >
> > > At this time these are proposals only. Comments are welcome. If the
> > > comments become extensive then I may request that we move the conversation
> > > to Meta.
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > >
>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia in an abstract language

[Leila Zia]

Denny, thanks for writing and rewriting this piece. I finally got a chance
to go through it end-to-end. Challenge accepted! :)

Here are a few early thoughts, and I look forward to discussing it with you
and others further.

* I tend to agree with you that the challenges of artificial intelligence
are a superset of the challenges of bringing to life the abstract
Wikipedia. Quite a few items you list in "Unique advantages" section make
the abstract-Wikipedia space more easily approachable.

* I agree with you that if we are to take the content of Wikipedia to many
of the languages spoken in the world today, and engage their speakers to
share in, the current model won't work/scale (at least soon enough).

* You've raised a great point about "Graceful degradation". A very nice
challenge.

* In "Unique advantages" you talk about "a single genre of text,
encyclopedias" and I wonder what it takes to expand our thinking to include
images as well. Will we need to rethink your current construct? Including
images is attractive for at least two reasons: Because in terms of learning
people have different needs and we will likely need to (continue to)
include images as we create the abstractions, but also because one can
potentially think of images as representations that are already abstract.

Best,
Leila

--
Leila Zia
Senior Research Scientist, Lead
Wikimedia Foundation


On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 10:13 AM Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:

> an interesting concept indeed!
>
> dj
>
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 5:36 PM Denny Vrandečić  <mailto:vrande...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> The extended whitepaper that was presented at the DL workshop is now
> available here:
>
> http://simia.net/download/abstractwikipedia_whitepaper.pdf
>
> Still not a proper scientific paper (no references, notv situated in
> related work), but going into a bit more detail on the ideas on the first
> paper published previously.
>
> On Sat, Sep 29, 2018, 11:32 Denny Vrandečić  vrande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Semantic Web languages allow to express ontologies and knowledge bases in
> > a way meant to be particularly amenable to the Web. Ontologies formalize
> > the shared understanding of a domain. But the most expressive and
> > widespread languages that we know of are human natural languages, and the
> > largest knowledge base we have is the wealth of text written in human
> > languages.
> >
> > We looks for a path to bridge the gap between knowledge representation
> > languages such as OWL and human natural languages such as English. We
> > propose a project to simultaneously expose that gap, allow to collaborate
> > on closing it, make progress widely visible, and is highly attractive and
> > valuable in its own right: a Wikipedia written in an abstract language to
> > be rendered into any natural language on request. This would make current
> > Wikipedia editors about 100x more productive, and increase the content of
> > Wikipedia by 10x. For billions of users this will unlock knowledge they
> > currently do not have access to.
> >
> > My first talk on this topic will be on October 10, 2018, 16:45-17:00, at
> > the Asilomar in Monterey, CA during the Blue Sky track of ISWC. My
> second,
> > longer talk on the topic will be at the DL workshop in Tempe, AZ, October
> > 27-29. Comments are very welcome as I prepare the slides and the talk.
> >
> > Link to the paper: http://simia.net/download/abstractwikipedia.pdf
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Denny
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org>?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
> --
> 
> [http://crow.kozminski.edu.pl/minds.jpg]<http://nerds.kozminski.edu.pl/>
>   prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
> kierownik katedry MINDS (Management in Networked and Digital Societies)
> Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
> http://NeRDS.kozminski.edu.pl <http://nerds.kozminski.edu.pl/>
>
>
>
>
> Ostatnie artykuły:
>
>   *   Dariusz Jemielniak, Maciej Wilamowski (2017)  Cultural Diversity of
> Quality of Information on Wikipedias<
> http://crow.kozminski.edu.pl/papers/cultures%20of%20wikipedias.pdf>
> Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 68:  10.
> 2460–2470.
>   *   Dariusz Jemielniak 

[Wikimedia-l] How diverse are your readers?

[Leila Zia]

Hi all,

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

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

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

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

Best,
Leila

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

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

[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Research Showcase] March 20 at 11:30 AM PST, 18:30 UTC

[Leila Zia]

Hi all,

The next Research Showcase, “Learning How to Correct a Knowledge Base
from the Edit History” and “TableNet: An Approach for Determining
Fine-grained Relations for Wikipedia Tables” will be live-streamed
this Wednesday, March 20, 2019, at 11:30 AM PST/18:30 UTC (Please note
the change in time in UTC due to daylight saving changes in the U.S.).
The first presentation is about using edit history to automatically
correct constraint violations in Wikidata, and the second is about
interlinking Wikipedia tables.

YouTube stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p62PMhkVNM

As usual, you can join the conversation on IRC at #wikimedia-research.
You can also watch our past research showcases at
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Showcase .

This month's presentations:

Learning How to Correct a Knowledge Basefrom the Edit History

By Thomas Pellissier Tanon (Télécom ParisTech), Camille Bourgaux (DI
ENS, CNRS, ENS, PSL Univ. & Inria), Fabian Suchanek (Télécom
ParisTech), WWW'19.

The curation of Wikidata (and other knowledge bases) is crucial to
keep the data consistent, to fight vandalism and to correct good faith
mistakes. However, manual curation of the data is costly. In this
work, we propose to take advantage of the edit history of the
knowledge base in order to learn how to correct constraint violations
automatically. Our method is based on rule mining, and uses the edits
that solved violations in the past to infer how to solve similar
violations in the present. For example, our system is able to learn
that the value of the [[d:Property:P21|sex or gender]] property
[[d:Q467|woman]] should be replaced by [[d:Q6581072|female]]. We
provide [https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-game/distributed/#game=43
a Wikidata game] that suggests our corrections to the users in order
to improve Wikidata. Both the evaluation of our method on past
corrections, and the Wikidata game statistics show significant
improvements over baselines.


TableNet: An Approach for Determining Fine-grained Relations for
Wikipedia Tables

By Besnik Fetahu

Wikipedia tables represent an important resource, where information is
organized w.r.t table schemas consisting of columns. In turn each
column, may contain instance values that point to other Wikipedia
articles or primitive values (e.g. numbers, strings etc.). In this
work, we focus on the problem of interlinking Wikipedia tables for two
types of table relations: equivalent and subPartOf. Through such
relations, we can further harness semantically related information by
accessing related tables or facts therein. Determining the relation
type of a table pair is not trivial, as it is dependent on the
schemas, the values therein, and the semantic overlap of the cell
values in the corresponding tables. We propose TableNet, an approach
that constructs a knowledge graph of interlinked tables with subPartOf
and equivalent relations. TableNet consists of two main steps: (i) for
any source table we provide an efficient algorithm to find all
candidate related tables with high coverage, and (ii) a neural based
approach, which takes into account the table schemas, and the
corresponding table data, we determine with high accuracy the table
relation for a table pair. We perform an extensive experimental
evaluation on the entire Wikipedia with more than 3.2 million tables.
We show that with more than 88% we retain relevant candidate tables
pairs for alignment. Consequentially, with an accuracy of 90% we are
able to align tables with subPartOf or equivalent relations.
Comparisons with existing competitors show that TableNet has superior
performance in terms of coverage and alignment accuracy.

Best,
Leila

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How diverse are your readers?

[Leila Zia]

Hi all,

This is a very interesting discussion. I'm going to fork this thread in the
next 2 hours (unless one of you do this in the meantime) for us to continue
the conversation around using search as a signal for improving Wikipedia in
there. It would be best, for current and future readability, to keep the
focus of the current thread on the original topic.

Thanks,
Leila

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 7:51 AM Edward Saperia  wrote:

> We can consider this an opportunity, e.g. popular media often touches on
> diverse cultural and political themes, and international sports tournaments
> give people a reason to learn about different countries. If people find our
> project this way then so be it, we can just try and make sure those
> articles great starting points for further exploration
> .
>
> Ed
>
>
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 at 12:31, Amir E. Aharoni <
> amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il>
> wrote:
>
> > ‬
> >
> > > The idea of a popularity-driven encyclopaedia scares 
> > >
> > >
> > I agree, although I'd make it a bit more focused: an encyclopedia that is
> > *only* popularity-driven is indeed scary. It's good to mention this, and
> > not once, but repeatedly.
> >
> > However, providing Wikipedia editors with information about what *is* in
> > demand is useful, as long as the editors clearly know that they have the
> > choice to write what is *important* and that "important" is not equal to
> > "popular".
> >
> > While I haven't ran a proper survey about this, conversations that with
> > Wikipedia editors from various "big" and "small" languages tell me that
> > most of them already understand it, and this is good. Nevertheless,
> > reminding people that Wikipedia is not supposed to be just about covering
> > popular topics won't hurt.
> >
> > --
> > Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
> > http://aharoni.wordpress.com
> > ‪“We're living in pieces,
> > I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: 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 and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How diverse are your readers?

[Leila Zia]

Ciao Ilario,

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 12:16 PM Ilario valdelli  wrote:
>
> Any study is interesting, but if it could be country-based, it would be
> better.

We agree with you that the country component is quite important. There
is some ongoing engineering work to make the feature available in
QuickSurvey [1] which is the extension we use. If it gets ready, we
will include at least some sampling by country.

Let me give you a couple of reasons why from our perspective sampling
by country is key:
* Understanding readers from countries such as Nigeria is hard through
English Wikipedia as the traffic in enwiki is dominated by other
countries. In order to get enough responses from Nigeria, we have to
ask many more questions from the rest of the world which is not
something we want to do.
* Many chapters are organized by geographical regions and learning
about the readers in their geography can empower them in new ways.
* If we have enough responses from different countries, we can have
more accurate debiasing steps. For example, if we have enough data
from country x, we can look at the age distribution of respondents and
see if that age distribution matches the age distribution from that
country based on external databases available. If not, we can try to
correct for the differences, or at least be aware of the caveats.

Best,
Leila
[1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:QuickSurveys

> Kind regards
>
>
> On 06/03/2019 22:12, Leila Zia wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > As I mentioned in an earlier thread [1], we will be running reader
> > surveys across a number of Wikipedia languages to learn about the
> > reader needs and motivations in these languages as well as some of
> > their demographic information (and perhaps the correlations between
> > demographics and user motivations and characteristics).
> >
> > If your language community is interested to have statistics on the
> > distribution of reader gender, age, education, native language, and
> > geographic region (rural/urban) in your language (and depending on how
> > much data we collect in your language, perhaps more insights), this is
> > your chance to indicate interest at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reader_Behaviour/Demographics_and_Wikipedia_use_cases#Interested_languages
> >
> > I initially communicated 2019-02-15 as the deadline to sign up. Since
> > then, we have run a pilot test on enwiki and we are investigating some
> > of the results to see if any changes in the survey questions are
> > needed. You have now time until 2019-03-15 to indicate interest.
> >
> > As always: this call is primarily a service to your language
> > community. If you like it, take action on it. If you don't, no action
> > is needed. :)
> >
> > Best,
> > Leila
> >
> > [1] 
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-February/091762.html
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How diverse are your readers?

[Leila Zia]

Hi Gerard,

On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 2:26 PM Gerard Meijssen
 wrote:
> but really
> why can we not have the data that allows us to seek out what people are
> actually looking for and do not find..

Please open a Phabricator task for this request at
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org . Please add Research as a tag and
add me as one of the subscribers. I'd like to work with you on a
concrete proposal. A few items to consider as you're expanding the
description of the task:

* We won't be able to release raw search queries as they come to
Wikimedia servers. That is for privacy reasons.

* You also likely don't need raw search queries. If you can be
specific about what you want to have access to, as much as possible,
that can help us get started with scoping the problem. I'm looking for
something along these lines: "I want to be able to see a monthly list
of top n search terms in language x that result in 0 search results or
results where the user does not click on any of the search results
offered." The more specific, the better. If you are in doubt, put some
description and we can iterate on it.

Best,
Leila
p.s. The goal of this exercise is to have an open question ready (with
all the details one needs to know) for the next time we will have a
volunteer researcher to work with us.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Analytics] Farewell, Erik!

[Leila Zia]

Erik,

It's been an incredible honor to work with you as a colleague and a
volunteer. Thank you for the stats and all the conversations about
categories, topics, languages, ..., but even more so for showing me
the path and the purpose, time after time. I will dearly miss you in
Wikimedia Foundation, and I hope that I can be a steward of what you
stood for (or at least I can say that I will continue to try:).

Enjoy your new endeavors and see you around.

Regards,
Leila


On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 3:22 PM Christian Aistleitner
 wrote:
>
> Hi Erik,
>
> Thank you for your work!
>
> When I first came across Wikistats, it completely blew my mind. Such a
> huge collection of raw data turned into digestible information. It's
> amazing, stunning, and above all: enlightening.
> I've spent countless hours digging through Wikistats in awe.
>
> But besides the gargantuan effort that Wikistats represents, I even
> more value your passion for the data and information it holds, your
> second-to-none expertise on it, and your willingness to go through the
> details and numbers with each and everyone, regardless where they come
> from, your openness, your unbiased-ness, your constructive approach,
> and your never-shying-away from discussions about the numbers and
> trends.
>
> Enjoy your retirement from WMF, and seeing your blog post and your
> tree mapping project, I'm sure it'll be an amazing "Unruhestand" :-)
>
> Have fun,
> Christian
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 01:17:48PM -0800, Dario Taraborelli wrote:
> > “[R]ecent revisions of an article can be peeled off to reveal older layers,
> > which are still meaningful for historians. Even graffiti applied by vandals
> > can by its sheer informality convey meaningful information, just like
> > historians learned a lot from graffiti on walls of classic Pompei. Likewise
> > view patterns can tell future historians a lot about what was hot and what
> > wasn’t in our times. Reason why these raw view data are meant to be
> > preserved for a long time.”
> >
> > Erik Zachte wrote these lines in a blog post
> > 
> > almost
> > ten years ago, and I cannot find better words to describe the gift he gave
> > us. Erik retired  this
> > past Friday, leaving behind an immense legacy. I had the honor to work with
> > him for several years, and I hosted this morning an intimate, tearful
> > celebration of what Erik has represented for the Wikimedia movement.
> >
> > His Wikistats project —with his signature
> > pale yellow background we've known and loved since the mid 2000s
> > —has
> > been much more than an "analytics platform". It's been an individual
> > attempt he initiated, and grew over time, to try and comprehend and make
> > sense of the largest open collaboration project in human history, driven by
> > curiosity and by an insatiable desire to serve data to the communities that
> > most needed it.
> >
> > Through this project, Erik has created a live record of data describing the
> > growth and reach of all Wikimedia communities, across languages and
> > projects, putting multi-lingualism and smaller communities at the very
> > center of his attention. He coined metrics such as "active editors" that
> > defined the benchmark for volunteers, the Wikimedia Foundation, and the
> > academic community to understand some of the growing pains and editor
> > retention issues
> > 
> > the movement has faced. He created countless reports—that predate by nearly
> > a decade modern visualizations of online attention—to understand what
> > Wikipedia traffic means in the context of current events like elections
> > 
> > or public health crises
> > .
> > He has created countless
> >  visualizations
> > 
> > that show the enormous gaps in local language content and representation
> > that, as a movement, we face in our efforts to build an encyclopedia for
> > and about everyone. He has also made extensive use of pie charts
> > ,
> > which—as friends—we are ready to turn a blind eye towards.
> >
> > Most importantly, the data Erik has brougth to life has been cited over
> > 1,000 times
> > 
> > in the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why We Read Wikipedia in your language

[Leila Zia]

Hi all,

Update time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 5:43 PM Leila Zia  wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Update time.
>
> Thank you all for your patience and support as we went through the
> different stages of the analysis for this study. We have now concluded
> the study based on the survey of the 14 Wikipedia languages [1]. Here
> is what will happen next:
>
> * We are doing some relatively major documentation at

[Wikimedia-l] Copyright workflows - research (Was: Re: Foundation management of volunteers)

[Leila Zia]

Hi Benjamin,

My name is Leila and I'm in the Research team in Wikimedia Foundation.
Please see below.

On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:59 AM Benjamin Lees  wrote:
>
> The community has been working on copyright violation issues for a long
> time.[2]  There are probably ways the WMF could support improvements in
> this area.  Maybe the WMF could even design some system that would
> magically solve the problem.  But it's certainly not the community standing
> in the way.

While I understand that you brought this up as one example within a
broader context and set of challenges, now that you have brought it
up, I'd like to ask you for a specific guidance. Can you help me
understand, in your view, what are some of the most pressing issues on
this front from the perspective of those who work to detect and
address copyright violations? (Not knowing a lot about this space, my
first thought is to have better algorithms to detect copyright
violations in Wikipedia (?) text (?) across many languages. Is this
the most pressing issue?)

Some more info about how we work at the end of this email.[4]

Best,
Leila

> [1]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed_article_creation_trial
> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_violations#Resources
> Also consider
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-November/128777.html
> back in 2013.
[3] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Formal_collaborations
[4]
To give you some more information about the context I operate in:

* Part of the work of our team is to listen to community conversations
in lists such as wikimedia-l to find research questions/directions to
work on. If we can understand the problem space clearly and define
research questions bsaed on, we can work on priorities with the
corresponding communities and start the research on these questions
ourselves or through our Formal Collaborations program [3].

* The types of problems that we can work (relatively) more quickly on
are those for which the output can be an API, data-set, or knowledge.

* We won't start the research based on hearing the most pressing
issues from you. If we see that based on your response there is a
promising direction for further research, we will follow up (with the
corresponding parts of the community involved in this space) to learn
more about the general and specific problems.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How diverse are your readers?

[Leila Zia]

An update on this thread:

* We have launched the survey on 2019-06-26 in 15 languages and we
intend to stop the surveys 7 days after launch time. The current flow
of responses is as expected.

* The participating languages are: ar, de, en (sampling from all
countries), en (sampling from countries in Africa), es, fa, fr
(sampling from all countries), fr (sampling from countries in Africa),
he, hu, no, ro, ru, uk, zh. (A big thank you to the volunteers in
these language communities who worked with us to make the translations
and announcements on village pumps happen.)

* Please watch 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reader_Behaviour/Demographics_and_Wikipedia_use_cases
if you're interested to receive updates about the research as we go
through the analysis. (Please expect, roughly, a monthly update
frequency. If we can do more frequently, we will.)

* If you want the survey to run in your language community, there is a
chance that we run the same survey in a few weeks time in a few of
more languages. You can express your interest by adding a line item as
the last row of the table in
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reader_Behaviour/Demographics_and_Wikipedia_use_cases#Interested_languages
. Priority is given to languages who have signed up prior to this
announcement. We can't guarantee that we can run these extra surveys.

And one logistical announcement: As some of you know, Isaac Johnson
from the Research team is working heavily on this stage of the
research (demographics+motivation/needs). As a result, some or all of
the future announcements about this stage of the research may come
from him instead of me. :)

Best,
Leila

On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 11:07 PM David Goodman  wrote:
>
> Peter, all of these would be useful .  The most useful of all would be a
> list of those that have been deleted as drafts that were not improved for 6
> months--I havre a partial list, but there is no easy way of screening it. A
> spreadsheet with links to the deleted versions and to the google scholar
> and worldcat records would be an enormous help--I became an admin 12 years
> ago specifically to rescue deleted articles, but there is no systematic way
> of finding them.
>
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 1:33 AM Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > David,
> > Would your work be influenced by an analysis of the academic biographies
> > which are most searched for that are not on Wikipedia yet? (assuming that
> > such an targeted analysis was available)
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > PS. An analysis that included a check of whether the topic was likely to
> > be notable and a listing of possible sources would also save a lot of
> > wasted effort. Also a check against articles that have been deleted for
> > good reasons, and articles in other languages with a reasonable accessible
> > reference list.
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of David Goodman
> > Sent: 12 March 2019 07:15
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] How diverse are your readers?
> >
> > "with popular topics cannibalizing resources."
> >
> > What resources can be cannibalized?   The limiting resource in WP is
> > interested people writing, improving, and validating  articles.  People
> > choose their own topics.  This is different from an organization where
> > staff can be directed to work on what the management think is important.
> >
> > I, for example, almost totally avoid most aspects of what is popular
> > culture--I am neither competent nor interested. ) The topics I work on are
> > those that interest me, mainly academic biographies. I'm sure most  people
> > do not think them important.  We're volunteers, and must tolerate each
> > others interests.
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 5:06 PM John Erling Blad  wrote:
> >
> > > We should be using a grid for what people are reading about, instead
> > > of using countries. That will give a better representation of large
> > > countries vs small countries. It will also better reflect local ethnic
> > > groups.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 1:53 PM Amir E. Aharoni
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ‫בתאריך יום א׳, 10 במרץ 2019 ב-23:27 מאת ‪Gerard Meijssen‬‏ <‪
> > > > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com‬‏>:‬
> > > >
> > > > > Hoi,
> > > > > I have been thinking about it.. There is a place for research but
> > > really
> > > > > why can we not have the data that allows us to seek out what people
> > are
> > > > > actually looking for and do not find.. Why can we not promote what
> > > proves
> > > > > to be of interest [1] ?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Actually, there was some work done around it. Here are some examples:
> > > >
> > > > 1. The Discovery (Search) team in the Foundation researched searches in
> > > > Wikimedia sites' search box that yielded zero results. This was done in
> > > > 2016 or so, led by Dan 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Leila Zia]

Hi Paulo,

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 6:38 PM Paulo Santos Perneta
 wrote:
>
> If they don't have legal resources, then it is pointless to use NC ND for
> the content, as they will not be suing anyone that ignores the license and
> commercializes it anyway.

In practice, this can happen. Two points to keep in mind:

* Building trust and relationships with new communities may require
taking steps that we may not have been taking so far. People operate
in different contexts and they have varying experiences, and we may
sometimes have to change the way we do things to include them and
their knowledge. We should get comfortable thinking about these
trade-offs as we think about how to bring more diverse people and
content to the project. (I'm not arguing that we should do what this
proposal says at this point. We should discuss it though in the talk
page.)

* Having some legal pathway can be attractive to some folks, /even if/
they don't exercise it. This is an assurance that they can have some
control over their culture and the narratives around it and I can see
how this can be important for some marginalized communities. This
middle step may be needed. Also, if the legal pathway is there, they
can always some day decide to pursue it.

> If such knowledge can't be freely shared, then it has no place in Commons,
> in my opinion. If that makes it less visible, then that is the problem of
> the communities that don't share it freely. One cannot have both things at
> the same time.

Two points again: ;)

* Re Commons or not is something we should discuss in the talk pages.
Peter had some really good points early on on this thread about the 3
different options available.

* This won't be only their problem. It will be our shared problem. If
Commons ends up not being the solution, we shouldn't stop there. We
should think through what else we can do to make bringing of their
knowledge to Wikimedia projects happen. While I don't know what the
answers are, I know that we should try more. From a narrow research
perspective: this is immensely important for addressing Wikimedia's
knowledge gaps for the sake of our own immediate users but also for
the sake of indirect users of Wikimedia content. Wikimedia is imo one
of the cornerstones of the Web. The content we collectively bring to
Wikimedia projects is no longer /just/ used directly on Wikipedia
(even that alone is enough argument to attempt to find solutions for
the kind of gaps we're talking about). It's being used by a variety of
technologies to build algorithms and machines that have impact on
people's lives. Gaps in Wikimedia can become a source of bias and gaps
on search engines, home devices, school material, ... .

I'll keep the specific comments about the proposals for the talk pages.

Best,
Leila

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Join us tomorrow for the FINAL Wikimedia Monthly Activities Meeting

[Leila Zia]

Hi Pine,

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 12:47 PM Pine W  wrote:

> From what I have seen, I think that Wikimedia Space may be good for some
> use cases, but it's not a substitute for Meta and for many existing public
> communications channels. One use case for Space that does make sense to me
> is that people might want to use it for private group communications.
> However, the platform is under WMF's control, community governance appears
> to be nearly nonexistent, public interest appears to be low at this time,
> and I think that Space fragments discussions onto yet another platform.

I'm not sure if you've already watched the Metrics Meeting today. If
you have not, you may find these helpful:

* Elena's response to a few questions about the governance of Space,
who/what-purpose it's being designed for, how we should evaluate its
success, ...: https://youtu.be/nhoJb6rwkfc?t=3487

* In IRC, whatami shared a link to the Talk pages project:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk_pages_project

Best,
Leila

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "The Foundation does not care so much of the French-speaking contributors"

[Leila Zia]

Hi,

A different angle for looking at the question of WMF staff attending
community events which may help this conversation:

As a staff member (and acknowledging that my position is none of the
ones Thierry called out in their first email on this thread), with the
exception of a few community events, I very much hesitate to attend a
local community-run event unless the specific community, or at least
one person from that community, has specifically invited me or told me
I should consider attending. There is definitely some feeling of
fear/self-consciousness on my end about entering in a place where I
may not be welcome, where I impose my presence to others, or entering
conversations where my expertise may not be valued/considered because
I'm carrying a history which may or may not even be really mine.

I'm sharing my feelings and the way I think about whether to attend a
local event or not here not to ask for empathy in my specific case
(which is btw, always welcomed:) but to say that there may be other
staff members like me, especially those who have joined WMF more
recently, who may be in the same boat. My recommendation would be for
the local communities to signal to the specific people which they want
in their meetings that they're welcome to attend. At least this way
you will know the person has felt invited/welcomed and will have a
higher chance to decide to attend.

To be clear: I'm not saying WMF not attending this specific event
would have been addressed by the above. I don't know. I'm just
explaining one of the reasons this may have happened, and providing a
suggestion to address this specific reason.

Best,
Leila
--
Leila Zia
Principal Research Scientist, Head of Research
Wikimedia Foundation

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 4:20 AM Philip Kopetzky
 wrote:
>
> Gereon, you clearly forget the whole Mediaviewer saga and attendance of WMF
> staff at the following WikiCon in Cologne ;-) But that was a long time ago
> :-)
>
> On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 01:53, Gereon Kalkuhl  wrote:
>
> > Since 2010 we have the WikiCon for the German language communities with
> > more than 300 attendants. I don't remember that the WMF has sent anyone
> > to these conventions. And why should they? It's all in German, the
> > communities are established and have strong chapters. I suppose the same
> > applies to the French language communites. The WMF visits emerging
> > communities, to learn about them and to help them by transfering
> > knowlege. They visit the CEE meetings, they visit Wiki Indabas. I don't
> > think that the WMF is neglecting big communities, it rather makes sense
> > that when sending employes across half the planet they check before,
> > what benefits the conferences have from their attendance and what
> > benefits their attendance bring to the particpants of the conference.
> > Cheers, Gereon
> >
> > Am 15.09.2019 um 20:02 schrieb Thierry Coudray:
> > > "*The Foundation does not care so much of the French-speaking
> > contributors*".
> > > This harsh sentence is the translation of a statement in French, I've
> > just
> > > said in a conversation a week ago at the Francophone Wikiconvention held
> > > last weekend in Brussels. The statement may seem excessive, because the
> > > Foundation does things for the Francophone community as well as for other
> > > communities (and its website is fairly well translated into French). But
> > it
> > > reflected my feeling, shared by my three interlocutors, all non-French,
> > > facing that no Foundation high-level members were present to this
> > > Wikiconvention: no executive director, nor members of the Board, nor any
> > > level-C staff. In an another conversation, where the subject came up over
> > > again, someone said this absence was offensive. I do not know if it
> > > reflects the majority of attendees feelings but with varying degrees, I
> > > would said it was widely shared.
> > >
> > > In 2017, for the Francophone Wikiconvention in Strasbourg we had a very
> > > quick visit of Katherine Maher, in 2018, a simple video message and in
> > 2019
> > > ... nothing. At the same time, the Francophone Wikiconvention has stepped
> > > up with ever more participants, always more countries represented. This
> > > year, it brought together more than 220 Francophones, Algerian, Belgian,
> > > Beninese, Cameroonian, Canadian, French, Guinean, Ivorian, Swiss and
> > > Tunisian contributors, and I may forget some, with varied and enriching
> > > conferences and meetings. A huge success, very well organized by
> > employees
> > > but also by several volunteers, who dedicated time and energy. This
> > > Wikiconve

[Wikimedia-l] Research + Chapters, User Groups, Affiliates at Wikimania

[Leila Zia]

Hi all,

My apologies for posting this message here as I don't know of a better
place to reach out to many chapters, user groups and affiliates at
once. This message is for these groups [0] and in case their
representatives will be attending Wikimania 2019.

---
One of the empowering aspects of attending Wikimania for me in the
past years has been to be able to connect to many of you in person: to
build lasting relationships, to understand the challenges that you
face in your Wikimedia related efforts, and brainstorm with you about
how/if research can help you answer some of your open questions. These
conversations have been a source of inspiration for at least a few
projects that the Research team at Wikimedia Foundation has picked up
over the past years [1]. As our team is planning for our presence in
Wikimania 2019 [2], I only hope that we can have even more of this
kind of interaction together while we're in Stockholm.

To this end and in order to make the best use of our collective time
together, I'd like to propose an experimental meet-up during this
year's Wikimania where the interested representatives of chapters,
user groups, affiliates and the members of the Research team to meet.
In order to organize this session, we need your input and I have put
together a few questions at
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSe1YZmgxkJJA2lO6jl_nmOL9pwhbNu5GKVZ2klAqxRIG674Gw/viewform
that I'd appreciate if you answer if you find the idea of meeting up
interesting. If you do not want to go to the link above and still want
to provide your input, please send your responses to the questions at
the end of this email to me privately.

Whether the meet-up idea ends up being a useful one for you or not
will be determined by your responses. Independent of that, I look
forward to touch-basing with many of you soon. :)

Best,
Leila

[0] From earlier conversations with chapters, user groups, and
affiliates I've got the impression that it's useful to have a
dedicated session focused on these groups and their
needs/perspectives. This being said, this is not a hard rule. :) If
you are not a representative of these groups and you'd like to attend,
you're welcome to. Please fill out the survey.

[1] https://research.wikimedia.org/projects.html

[2] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T229267


Survey questions if you don't want to fill out the survey by going to
the link provided in this email:

Description:
[The following is a tentative description of the event and it may
change based on your responses to this survey. The agenda for the meet
up will be finalized on 2019-08-07.]

Let's use the opportunity of being in Wikimania to get together and
discuss the following and beyond:
* [10-min] An update about what the Research team at Wikimedia
Foundation has done since we met last year in Wikimania. We will
provide updates on "Addressing Knowledge Gaps" and research
contributions to "Knowledge Integrity".
* [5-min] What stopped us from doing more? What challenges did we face?
* [15-min] Let's talk longer term: what does it take to have a global
network of researchers around Wikimedia projects? Why is having such a
network important? Can we work together on this?
* [30-min or more] What are some of the most pressing needs/questions
that chapters, affiliates, and user groups face? (with an eye for
converting them to research questions.)
* ...

---
To learn more about the Research team at Wikimedia Foundation and what
we do, please visit https://research.wikimedia.org/ .

---
Question 1. Are you interested to attend a meet-up with Wikimedia
Foundation's Research team?
Question 2. If your answer to the above question is Yes or Maybe,
please let us know which affiliate, user group or chapter do you
represent or are a member of?
Question 3. What is a good outcome of the meet-up for you if you
choose to attend it?
Question 4. If you have specific times and days that you cannot attend
the meet-up, please indicate them below.
Question 5. Anything else you'd like to share with us and we should
take into account when planning for this event?


--
Leila Zia
Principal Research Scientist, Head of Research
Wikimedia Foundation

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing our newest thematic organisation, Wikimedia Medicine

[Leila Zia]

[with my volunteer hat on.]

I am really excited to hear about this news. Thanks for sharing it with us,
and congratulations to all of you involved. :)

Leila


On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 11:27 AM Toni Hermoso Pulido 
wrote:

> As a member and current Chairperson of the first thematic organization,
> but not the only one anymore, I would like to congratulate you for this
> achievement.
>
> Looking forward to exchanging experiences and working together!
>
> El 7/31/19 a les 7:04 PM, Shani Evenstein ha escrit:
> > Thank you, Kirill, and all who have been involved in making this a
> > reality!
> >
> > It's an exciting moment in our growth as an organization and we are
> > thrilled to be recognized as a Thematic Organization.
> > As Kirill mentioned, we do hope that this will lead the way for the
> scaling
> > of other cross-movement thematic efforts.
> >
> > We look forward to continuing working with affiliates in the movement and
> > especially expanding our collaborations with affiliates we haven't had
> the
> > chance to work closely with, as we scale our efforts worldwide. If you
> are
> > interested in working with us, please feel free to contact us at:
> > wikiproject...@gmail.com
> >
> > We look forward to meeting some of you in the Health Space at Wikimania
> > , where you'll be
> able to
> > find out more about what we've been doing and how you can join forces
> with
> > us.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Shani Evenstein
> > Chairperson, Wikimedia Medicine.
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > *Shani Evenstein Sigalov*
> > * Lecturer, Tel Aviv University.
> > * EdTech Innovation Strategist, NY/American Medical Program, Sackler
> School
> > of Medicine, Tel Aviv University.
> > * PhD Candidate, School of Education, Tel Aviv University.
> > * OER & Emerging Technologies Coordinator, UNESCO Chair
> >  on Technology,
> Internationalization
> > and Education, School of Education, Tel Aviv University
> > .
> > * Chairperson, Wikimedia Medicine
> > .
> > * Chairperson, Wikipedia & Education User Group
> > .
> > * Chairperson, The Hebrew Literature Digitization Society
> > .
> > * Chief Editor, Project Ben-Yehuda .
> > +972-525640648
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 6:58 PM Rajeeb Dutta 
> wrote:
> >
> >> Great news and many many congratulations to Wikimedia Medicine and all
> the
> >> people involved in making this happen.
> >> Thanks Kirill for the update.
> >>
> >> Best Regards,
> >> Rajeeb Dutta.
> >> (U: Marajozkee)
> >> Sent from my iPhone
> >>
> >>> On 31-Jul-2019, at 9:16 PM, camelia boban 
> >> wrote:
> >>> Many congratulations to Wikimedia Medicine, so happy for this
> >>> recognition.
> >>>
> >>> Camelia, WikiDonne User Group
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> *Camelia Boban*
> >>>
> >>> *| Java EE Developer |*
> >>>
> >>> *Affiliations Committee - **Wikimedia *Foundation
> >>> Coordinator - Diversity Working Group for Wikimedia Strategy 2030
> >>> Chair & co-founder - WikiDonne User Group *| WikiDonne Project ideator*
> >>>
> >>> *Diversity Space @ Wikimania 2019 Co-Lead*
> >>> WMIT - WMSE - WMCH - WMAR Member
> >>>
> >>> M. +39 3383385545
> >>> camelia.bo...@gmail.com
> >>> *Aissa Technologies* * | *Twitter
> >>>  *|* *LinkedIn
> >>> *
> >>> *Wikipedia  **|
> >> **WikiDonne
> >>> UG * | *WikiDonne Project
> >>>  *
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Il giorno mer 31 lug 2019 alle ore 17:25 Kirill Lokshin <
> >>> kirill.loks...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> >>>
>  Hi everyone!
> 
>  I'm very happy to announce that the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
> >> Trustees
>  has approved the recognition of Wikimedia Medicine [1] as a Wikimedia
>  thematic organisation.
> 
>  Over the past several years, Wikimedia Medicine has successfully
> planned
>  and executed a significant program portfolio, attracting new
> >> contributors
>  and forming partnerships with both movement affiliates and external
>  institutional partners around the world.  Wikimedia Medicine is an
>  ambitious, innovative, and highly effective organization that has
>  demonstrated a substantial record of independent programmatic impact
> and
>  continues to foster innovation and collaboration with numerous other
>  entities across the Wikimedia movement.
> 
>  Wikimedia Medicine's efforts to deliver critical medical information
> to
>  underserved and 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research + Chapters, User Groups, Affiliates at Wikimania

[Leila Zia]

Hi all,

I heard from 13 folks. Thank you for that. Based on the feedback on
the time and day of the event, the best time to schedule it seems to
be Friday, August 16, 16:00-17:20. So that's it. :) The meet-up page
is at 
https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2019:Meetups/Research_chapters_affiliates_usergroups_meetup
and I will update the room information once I have it secured. :)

I am behind on finalizing the agenda based on your responses to the
survey. You will see the finalized one by August 12.

Thanks,
Leila


On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 6:07 PM Leila Zia  wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> My apologies for posting this message here as I don't know of a better
> place to reach out to many chapters, user groups and affiliates at
> once. This message is for these groups [0] and in case their
> representatives will be attending Wikimania 2019.
>
> ---
> One of the empowering aspects of attending Wikimania for me in the
> past years has been to be able to connect to many of you in person: to
> build lasting relationships, to understand the challenges that you
> face in your Wikimedia related efforts, and brainstorm with you about
> how/if research can help you answer some of your open questions. These
> conversations have been a source of inspiration for at least a few
> projects that the Research team at Wikimedia Foundation has picked up
> over the past years [1]. As our team is planning for our presence in
> Wikimania 2019 [2], I only hope that we can have even more of this
> kind of interaction together while we're in Stockholm.
>
> To this end and in order to make the best use of our collective time
> together, I'd like to propose an experimental meet-up during this
> year's Wikimania where the interested representatives of chapters,
> user groups, affiliates and the members of the Research team to meet.
> In order to organize this session, we need your input and I have put
> together a few questions at
> https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSe1YZmgxkJJA2lO6jl_nmOL9pwhbNu5GKVZ2klAqxRIG674Gw/viewform
> that I'd appreciate if you answer if you find the idea of meeting up
> interesting. If you do not want to go to the link above and still want
> to provide your input, please send your responses to the questions at
> the end of this email to me privately.
>
> Whether the meet-up idea ends up being a useful one for you or not
> will be determined by your responses. Independent of that, I look
> forward to touch-basing with many of you soon. :)
>
> Best,
> Leila
>
> [0] From earlier conversations with chapters, user groups, and
> affiliates I've got the impression that it's useful to have a
> dedicated session focused on these groups and their
> needs/perspectives. This being said, this is not a hard rule. :) If
> you are not a representative of these groups and you'd like to attend,
> you're welcome to. Please fill out the survey.
>
> [1] https://research.wikimedia.org/projects.html
>
> [2] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T229267
>
> 
> Survey questions if you don't want to fill out the survey by going to
> the link provided in this email:
>
> Description:
> [The following is a tentative description of the event and it may
> change based on your responses to this survey. The agenda for the meet
> up will be finalized on 2019-08-07.]
>
> Let's use the opportunity of being in Wikimania to get together and
> discuss the following and beyond:
> * [10-min] An update about what the Research team at Wikimedia
> Foundation has done since we met last year in Wikimania. We will
> provide updates on "Addressing Knowledge Gaps" and research
> contributions to "Knowledge Integrity".
> * [5-min] What stopped us from doing more? What challenges did we face?
> * [15-min] Let's talk longer term: what does it take to have a global
> network of researchers around Wikimedia projects? Why is having such a
> network important? Can we work together on this?
> * [30-min or more] What are some of the most pressing needs/questions
> that chapters, affiliates, and user groups face? (with an eye for
> converting them to research questions.)
> * ...
>
> ---
> To learn more about the Research team at Wikimedia Foundation and what
> we do, please visit https://research.wikimedia.org/ .
>
> ---
> Question 1. Are you interested to attend a meet-up with Wikimedia
> Foundation's Research team?
> Question 2. If your answer to the above question is Yes or Maybe,
> please let us know which affiliate, user group or chapter do you
> represent or are a member of?
> Question 3. What is a good outcome of the meet-up for you if you
> choose to attend it?
> Question 4. If you have specific times and days that you cannot attend
> the meet-up, please indicate t

[Wikimedia-l] Where are the editors of your projects?

[Leila Zia]

Hi all,

The Analytics team at the Wikimedia Foundation [0] has recently
started releasing monthly data that gives you some information about
the count of active editors [1] per country contributing to the
different Wikipedia language editions. You can review the full
announcement [2] and play with the data [3].

I'm sharing this information on this list as many of the activities of
affiliates and volunteers of Wikipedia are focused on specific
geographies (through organizing events such as editathons, building
partnerships, running contests such as Wiki Loves *) and you may be
interested in monitoring how the geography of the editors in your
projects change over time.

If you think the data is of interest to you and you need help using
it, I have some pre-baked news for you. ;) The Research team, which
I'm a member of, will start (experimental) monthly IRC office hours
starting January and you can drop by and ask for help to use the data.
(I also just noticed that Analytics will start their own office hours
in January [4] though I'm less sure about the scope of theirs.)

Best,
Leila

[0] https://wikimediafoundation.org/role/analytics/
[1] Active is defined based on two categories of contributions: 5-99
edits/month and 100 or more edits/month.
[2] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/analytics/2019-November/006702.html
[3] https://dumps.wikimedia.org/other/geoeditors/
[4] https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Analytics#Contact

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

[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Research Showcase - Feedback time

[Leila Zia]

Hi all,

Wikimedia Research Showcase [1] is almost six years old and we're
using the birthday opportunity to step back and reflect on the past,
celebrate the contributions by more than 70 speakers and many of you
who participated in the discussions, and plan for its future.

We would like to ask for your input as we're thinking about the future
of the Research Showcases. We want to hear from those of you who
participated in the showcases and/or watched them, as well as those of
you who decided this is not something for you. :) In order to gather
your input, we have put together a survey that we'd appreciate if you
participate in.

Link to survey (please note that the link will take you to Google
Forms [2]): 
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSecgn8cMu5IfTYRgn93bfOiJVEIL09RRf_WV0dVr6ZnJ8UU_w/viewform

Your contributions to this survey can help us in our thinking as we
move forward. Please submit your responses by 2019-11-22.

Sincerely,
Jonathan Morgan and Leila Zia
Research, Wikimedia Foundation

[1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Showcase

[2] If you want to participate but not through Google Forms, ping me
off-list and I'll send you a pdf file you can fill and send back to me
(it won't be anonymous though. sorry.). I'm not attaching it to this
email as some lists may put my email in the moderation queue with an
attachment. (And I don't /think/ I can upload it to Commons.)

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Research Showcase - Feedback time

[Leila Zia]

Hi all,

A (first and last) friendly reminder that if you haven't participated
in the Research Showcase survey by now, you have one more week to do
so (and we will greatly appreciate your input:).

Link to survey:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSecgn8cMu5IfTYRgn93bfOiJVEIL09RRf_WV0dVr6ZnJ8UU_w/viewform

Thanks to those of you who have participated so far.

Thanks,
Leila

On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 12:46 PM Leila Zia  wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Wikimedia Research Showcase [1] is almost six years old and we're
> using the birthday opportunity to step back and reflect on the past,
> celebrate the contributions by more than 70 speakers and many of you
> who participated in the discussions, and plan for its future.
>
> We would like to ask for your input as we're thinking about the future
> of the Research Showcases. We want to hear from those of you who
> participated in the showcases and/or watched them, as well as those of
> you who decided this is not something for you. :) In order to gather
> your input, we have put together a survey that we'd appreciate if you
> participate in.
>
> Link to survey (please note that the link will take you to Google
> Forms [2]): 
> https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSecgn8cMu5IfTYRgn93bfOiJVEIL09RRf_WV0dVr6ZnJ8UU_w/viewform
>
> Your contributions to this survey can help us in our thinking as we
> move forward. Please submit your responses by 2019-11-22.
>
> Sincerely,
> Jonathan Morgan and Leila Zia
> Research, Wikimedia Foundation
>
> [1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Showcase
>
> [2] If you want to participate but not through Google Forms, ping me
> off-list and I'll send you a pdf file you can fill and send back to me
> (it won't be anonymous though. sorry.). I'm not attaching it to this
> email as some lists may put my email in the moderation queue with an
> attachment. (And I don't /think/ I can upload it to Commons.)

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Recommendations and community conversations launching next week

[Leila Zia]

[writing at my personal capacity.]

Hi Pine,

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 8:20 PM Pine W  wrote:
>
> * I realize that a lot of time and money has been spent in the strategy
> process to this point. I hope that there will be consensus on at least some
> of the recommendations.

True consensus based decision making for this stage, at least given
the technologies available to us at the moment, is not possible, imho.
One of the immediate challenges we will face is that the time
available to folks to participate is varying across people
significantly. We also have languages as the barriers for people to
talk directly with each other across languages. At best you can expect
heavy engagement early on (within different communities) and then
people gradually disengaging as conversations become lengthy and
sometimes even harsh or toxic. You may end up with some version of
consensus at the end (even that is hard as you have to aggregate
results across many communities and what if one doesn't agree with
another), but that will be the consensus of those who stayed around
and that's not a good place to be when you want to finalize the
recommendations. That makes me think that the approach through which
one entity accepts responsibility and make a decision while taking
into account the conversations and feedback that will come in in the
following weeks may be a better approach.

(Disclaimer: The process is very complex and I don't claim to know
what the right approach is.)

Best,
Leila

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Welcome back, Turkey

[Leila Zia]

This is a great news. A big thank you to all of you who worked on the
block over the past 2.5 years. It's great to have the readers of
Turkey back to the projects and while many of the editors didn't leave
during this time and stayed engaged, a warm welcome back to them as
well. And thank you for all the work you did during this time. :)

Best,
Leila

--
Leila Zia
Head of Research
Wikimedia Foundation

On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 10:25 AM Rupika Sharma  wrote:
>
> Thank for sharing the wonderful news Amanda! Welcome back Turkey!!
>
> Warmly,
> Rupika
>
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 11:51 PM Amanda Keton  wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > My name is Amanda Keton, the new General Counsel at the Wikimedia
> > Foundation. While Katherine is inflight traveling back from a busy week of
> > community meetings in Chile, I wanted to share the exciting news that
> > today, we have started to receive reports that the block of Wikipedia in
> > Turkey is being lifted, data which is also indicated by our internal
> > traffic reports. After more than two and a half years, access to Wikipedia
> > has been restored in Turkey - and on a timely occasion, as we celebrate
> > Wikipedia’s 19th birthday today!
> >
> > Please join me in welcoming back our friends and colleagues from Turkey.
> > While many have remained active during the block, restoring access to
> > Wikipedia will allow thousands more to return in the days and weeks ahead.
> > It is our shared responsibility and honor to help make them feel welcome
> > again and make sure they know how much we missed them. I am confident that
> > our community will successfully welcome them back with open arms. I know we
> > have community members around the world who have been eagerly looking
> > forward to the block being lifted and brainstorming activities to
> > celebrate, and I welcome them to share their ideas as we move forward.
> >
> > Our case in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is also still
> > pending, and remains important even in light of the unblock as a way to
> > continue advocating for strong protections for free expression online. We
> > will continue to post updates about the next steps in our case before the
> > ECHR on the Wikimedia Foundation website. We have also published a
> > statement to reflect that access has now been restored in Turkey. [1]
> >
> > Thank you all for your efforts, kind words, and encouraging thoughts as we
> > worked to restore access to Wikipedia in Turkey. I want to thank our
> > Turkish community, in particular, for their patience, resolution, and
> > continued participation in the movement during the more than two and a half
> > years Wikipedia was inaccessible. This was a prolonged global effort, on
> > behalf of free knowledge everywhere.
> >
> > Of course, there are other blocks around the world still in place, and our
> > efforts in addressing this type of censorship of knowledge is far from
> > over. That said, I hope all of you will celebrate this momentous
> > accomplishment for free knowledge today and join me in welcoming back the
> > people of Turkey to our projects, movement, and community.
> >
> > With gratitude,
> >
> > Amanda
> >
> > [1]
> >
> > https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2020/01/16/access-to-wikipedia-restored-in-turkey-after-more-than-two-and-a-half-years/
> > --
> >
> > Amanda Keton (she/her)
> >
> > General Counsel
> >
> > Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
> > *NOTICE: This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you
> > have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the
> > mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal and ethical
> > reasons, I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
> > members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more
> > on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer
> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer>.*
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
&g

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New Office hours for WMF/Research starting in January 2020

[Leila Zia]

A friendly reminder that the first joint Analytics and Research office
hours will take place on 2020-01-22 at 17.00-18.00 (UTC). Bring your
Wikimedia related research and data questions to us during these
office hours. More at
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Office_hours


Best,
Leila

--
Leila Zia
Head of Research
Wikimedia Foundation

On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 9:59 AM Martin Gerlach  wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> We, the Research team at Wikimedia Foundation, have received some requests
> over the past months for making ourselves more available to answer some of
> the research questions that you as Wikimedia volunteers, affiliates' staff,
> and researchers face in your projects and initiatives. Starting January
> 2020, we will experiment with monthly office hours organized jointly by our
> team and the Analytics team where you can join us and direct your questions
> to us. We will revisit this experiment in June 2020 to assess whether to
> continue it or not.
>
> The scope
>
> We encourage you to attend the office hour if you have research related
> questions. These can be questions about our teams, our projects, or more
> importantly questions about your projects or ideas that we can support you
> with during the office hours. You can also ask us questions about how to
> use a specific dataset available to you, to answer a question you have, or
> some other question. Note that the purpose of the office hours is to answer
> your questions during the dedicated time of the office hour. Questions that
> may require many hours of back-and-forth between our team and you are not
> suited for this forum. For these bigger questions, however, we are happy to
> brainstorm with you in the office hour and point you to some good
> directions to explore further on your own (and maybe come back in the next
> office hour and ask more questions).
>
> Time and Location
>
> We meet on the 4th Wednesday of every month 17.00-18.00 (UTC) in
> #wikimedia-research IRC channel on freenode [1].
>
> The first meeting will be on January 22.
>
> Up-to-date information on mediawiki [2]
>
> Archiving
>
> If you miss the office hour, you can read the logs of it at [3].
>
> The future announcements about these office hours will only go to the
> following lists so please make sure you're subscribed to them if you like
> to receive a ping:
>
> * wiki-research-l mailing list [4]
>
> * analytics mailing list [5]
>
> * wikidata mailing list [6]
>
> * the Research category in Space [7]
>
> on behalf of Research and Analytics at WMF,
>
> Martin
>
> [1] irc://irc.freenode.net/wikimedia-research
>
> [2] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Office_hours
>
> [3] https://wm-bot.wmflabs.org/logs/%23wikimedia-research/
>
> [4] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
> [5] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
>
> [6] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
> [7] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/tags/research
>
>
> --
> Martin Gerlach
> Research Scientist
> Wikimedia Foundation
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Netha wins 2020 RedHat Women in Open Source Award!

[Leila Zia]

Netha, this is an excellent news. Congratulations! :)

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020, 11:39 Camelia Boban  wrote:

> Congratulations Netha, we are so proud of you ❤️.
>
> Camelia
>
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2020, 6:48 PM Isaac Olatunde 
> wrote:
>
> > Congratulations to Netha. This ward is inspiring.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Isaac
> >
> >
> > https://youtu.be/gaFV_LPbSfM
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 29 Apr 2020, 16:18 Subhashish,  wrote:
> >
> > > Hope everyone is keeping safe and well in a difficult time like now.
> > There
> > > is a good news - Netha Hussain has won the 2020 RedHat Women in Open
> > Source
> > > Award. [1][2]
> > >
> > > Congratulations Netha - this is such a proud moment for all of us!
> > >
> > > Also, see WikiProject COVID-19, where Netha is a leader, for those who
> > are
> > > interested to contribute on coronavirus-related articles:
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_COVID-19
> > >
> > > 1. https://www.redhat.com/en/about/women-in-open-source
> > > 2. https://twitter.com/Wikimedia/status/1255513602951430145
> > >
> > > Subha
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: 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 and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: 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 and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] [feedback requested] Taxonomy of knowledge gaps

[Leila Zia]

Hi all,

I hope this email finds you well.

I'm reaching out to let you know that the Research team [1] at the
Wikimedia Foundation has been working on developing a taxonomy of
knowledge gaps for the Wikimedia projects. We now have the first draft
of the taxonomy ready and we're seeking your input to improve it.

==Why are we contacting you?==
The taxonomy of knowledge gaps aims to be a high level representation
and grouping of the different knowledge gaps Wikimedia projects face
today. Each of you, whether you are a volunteer editor, patroller,
organizer, affiliate, etc. have valuable on the ground knowledge of
the different types of knowledge gaps. We believe it's important to
hear from you before we finalize the taxonomy.

==Material==
The material you may need to review is listed at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Knowledge_Gaps_Index/Taxonomy#Learn_more!
. I will list them below as well, for archive completeness:

* A summary of the taxonomy and motivation:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Knowledge_Gaps_Taxonomy_Summary-and-Motivation.pdf

* Full paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.12314

* A video presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP3uXA9bfvU or
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Knowledge_Gaps_Taxonomy.mp4.webm
(same video on two platforms)

==Feedback==
Please provide your feedback by answering the 6 questions posted at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Knowledge_Gaps_Index/Taxonomy#Feedback_collection_September_2020
.

We're collecting feedback until 2020-09-30.

==Talk with us==
If you have questions about the taxonomy and you'd like to talk with
us in a synchronous set-up, we invite you to join us in the upcoming
Research Showcase
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Showcase#September_2020
. We will have a very short presentation about it and will leave 15-20
min for any questions you may have. We are also happy to set up more
time to answer your questions if there is demand for it.

==Disclaimer==
As you're going through the material we have shared with you, you will
see imperfections and rooms for improvement. I acknowledge that they
exist and they may be numerous. We could spend another month and
improve the documents. We made the call to not let perfect be the
enemy of good. Please keep that in mind, assume good faith, and ask
questions if any part of what you read is not clear to you. We're here
to engage and answer your questions, and ultimately learn about your
perspective.

Thank you!

Leila, on behalf of
Martin Gerlach, Research Scientist, WMF
Isaac Johnson, Research Scientist, WMF
Miriam Redi, Senior Research Scientist, WMF
Leila Zia, Head of Research, WMF

[1] https://research.wikimedia.org/team.html

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [feedback requested] Taxonomy of knowledge gaps

[Leila Zia]

Hi SJ,

Please see below.


On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 2:15 PM Samuel Klein  wrote:

> Wow.  Thanks for doing this.
>  a) did you mine emijrp's subconscious yet?
>

(I assume you are referring to their work in
https://github.com/emijrp/all-human-knowledge .)

We indeed reviewed the work as a source. There are two aspects in emijrp's
work that are very helpful: 1) what constitutes a content gap? 2) how to
measure it?

Now that you mentioned it: I'll reach out to them to seek their feedback
more actively. thanks!


>  b) what meta-gaps are you aware of (areas where the gap analysis itself
> might have blind spots)
>

This is a great question. I have some answers for you; we will talk as a
team and get back to you on this.


>  c) this seems appropriate for a wikijournal
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiJournal> of knowledge...
>

noted down.



>
> 
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 6:48 PM Leila Zia  wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I hope this email finds you well.
> >
> > I'm reaching out to let you know that the Research team [1] at the
> > Wikimedia Foundation has been working on developing a taxonomy of
> > knowledge gaps for the Wikimedia projects. We now have the first draft
> > of the taxonomy ready and we're seeking your input to improve it.
> >
> > ==Why are we contacting you?==
> > The taxonomy of knowledge gaps aims to be a high level representation
> > and grouping of the different knowledge gaps Wikimedia projects face
> > today. Each of you, whether you are a volunteer editor, patroller,
> > organizer, affiliate, etc. have valuable on the ground knowledge of
> > the different types of knowledge gaps. We believe it's important to
> > hear from you before we finalize the taxonomy.
> >
> > ==Material==
> > The material you may need to review is listed at
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Knowledge_Gaps_Index/Taxonomy#Learn_more
> > !
> > . I will list them below as well, for archive completeness:
> >
> > * A summary of the taxonomy and motivation:
> >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Knowledge_Gaps_Taxonomy_Summary-and-Motivation.pdf
> >
> > * Full paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.12314
> >
> > * A video presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP3uXA9bfvU or
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Knowledge_Gaps_Taxonomy.mp4.webm
> > (same video on two platforms)
> >
> > ==Feedback==
> > Please provide your feedback by answering the 6 questions posted at
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Knowledge_Gaps_Index/Taxonomy#Feedback_collection_September_2020
> > .
> >
> > We're collecting feedback until 2020-09-30.
> >
> > ==Talk with us==
> > If you have questions about the taxonomy and you'd like to talk with
> > us in a synchronous set-up, we invite you to join us in the upcoming
> > Research Showcase
> >
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Showcase#September_2020
> > . We will have a very short presentation about it and will leave 15-20
> > min for any questions you may have. We are also happy to set up more
> > time to answer your questions if there is demand for it.
> >
> > ==Disclaimer==
> > As you're going through the material we have shared with you, you will
> > see imperfections and rooms for improvement. I acknowledge that they
> > exist and they may be numerous. We could spend another month and
> > improve the documents. We made the call to not let perfect be the
> > enemy of good. Please keep that in mind, assume good faith, and ask
> > questions if any part of what you read is not clear to you. We're here
> > to engage and answer your questions, and ultimately learn about your
> > perspective.
> >
> > Thank you!
> >
> > Leila, on behalf of
> > Martin Gerlach, Research Scientist, WMF
> > Isaac Johnson, Research Scientist, WMF
> > Miriam Redi, Senior Research Scientist, WMF
> > Leila Zia, Head of Research, WMF
> >
> > [1] https://research.wikimedia.org/team.html
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Analytics] Upcoming WMF/Research-Team Office hours on September 1st, 2020

[Leila Zia]

A friendly reminder that we will kick off this meeting in a couple of
minutes. Join us if you want to talk about research. :)

On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 10:13 AM Martin Gerlach  wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Join the Research Team at the Wikimedia Foundation [1] for their monthly 
> Office hours on 2020-09-01 at 16.00-17.00 (UTC).
>
>
> Through these office hours, we aim to make ourselves more available to answer 
> some of the research related questions that you as Wikimedia volunteer 
> editors, organizers, affiliates, staff, and researchers face in your projects 
> and initiatives (*).
>
>
> To participate, join the video-call via this Wikimedia-meet link [2]. There 
> is no set agenda - feel free to add your item to the list of topics in the 
> etherpad [3] (You can do this after you join the meeting, too.), otherwise 
> you are welcome to also just hang out. More detailed information (e.g. about 
> how to attend) can be found here [4].
>
>
> Started in the beginning of 2020 as an experiment [5], after the first 6 
> editions we have evaluated the scope and format of the Research office hours. 
> In order to decrease barriers of accessibility and to facilitate more direct 
> interaction, we have switched the format from IRC to video call. We will 
> re-evaluate the current format at the end of the year. We would also be glad 
> to hear your feedback and/or comments.
>
>
> (*) Some example cases we hope to be able to support you in:
>
> You have a specific research related question that you suspect you should be 
> able to answer with the publicly available data and you don’t know how to 
> find an answer for it, or you just need some more help with it. For example, 
> how can I compute the ratio of anonymous to registered editors in my wiki?
>
> You run into repetitive or very manual work as part of your Wikimedia 
> contributions and you wish to find out if there are ways to use machines to 
> improve your workflows. These types of conversations can sometimes be harder 
> to find an answer for during an office hour, however, discussing them can 
> help us understand your challenges better and we may find ways to work with 
> each other to support you in addressing it in the future.
>
> You want to learn what the Research team at the Wikimedia Foundation does and 
> how we can potentially support you. Specifically for affiliates: if you are 
> interested in building relationships with the academic institutions in your 
> country, we would love to talk with you and learn more. We have a series of 
> programs that aim to expand the network of Wikimedia researchers globally and 
> we would love to collaborate with those of you interested more closely in 
> this space.
>
> You want to talk with us about one of our existing programs [6].
>
>
> Hope to see many of you,
> Martin (WMF Research Team)
>
>
> [1] https://research.wikimedia.org/team.html
>
> [2] https://meet.wmcloud.org/ResearchOfficeHours
>
> [3] https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/Research-Analytics-Office-hours
>
> [4] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Office_hours
>
> [5] 
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/2019-December/007039.html
>
> [6] https://research.wikimedia.org/projects.html
>
>
>
> --
> Martin Gerlach
> Research Scientist
> Wikimedia Foundation
> ___
> Analytics mailing list
> analyt...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [feedback requested] Taxonomy of knowledge gaps

[Leila Zia]

All: Thanks to those of you who have provided your feedback.

This is your last friendly reminder. If you'd like to share your
thoughts and feedback with us about the taxonomy of knowledge gap
work, the official deadline for it is 2020-09-30 (Anytime on Earth;).
Our team is going to be heads down working on a couple of other
projects in the week of October 5. This means, if you wanted to
provide feedback to us and you didn't get a chance, you're more than
welcome to do so on or before October 11. We're collecting your
feedback at 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Knowledge_Gaps_Index/Taxonomy#Feedback_collection_September_2020
.

Sam, Thanks for sharing your feedback here and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Knowledge_Gaps_Index/Taxonomy#General_feedback
. Someone from our team or I will write to you more on the meta page.

Peter, I hope you don't mind if we continue the conversation with Sam
on the meta page now that the content is in both places. I see you've
started asking questions from SJ there.

Thanks all!

Leila

Leila Zia
Head of Research
Wikimedia Foundation


On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 11:18 AM Peter Southwood
 wrote:
>
> Good points.
> Are these maybe covered in a future stage of the project?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf 
> Of Samuel Klein
> Sent: 26 September 2020 19:26
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [feedback requested] Taxonomy of knowledge gaps
>
> Thank you Leila -- I appreciate the reflection and the update here.  The
> paper is thorough and methodical in its approach, which makes it easier for
> me to see a problem (for my own ideas):
>
> I don't see a focus on the primary tremendous *gaps *-- which for content
> is depth + breadth + freshness, and for contributors is reach, and for
> readers is reach in much of the world.
> I do see an excellent discussion of systemic *bias*, but mostly treated as
> *static* bias of what is there, and less *dynamic* bias of what we exclude
> or disallow or discourage.
>
> I left detailed feedback on meta
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Knowledge_Gaps_Index/Taxonomy#Alternatives>.
> I would welcome any help in aligning the way I think about this w/  your
> work (if that's desired).
> Perhaps best to address there, since it is all about refactoring and may
> benefit from that.  But I am posting the heart of it below for completeness:
>
> ===
> Here are the first things I think of around coverage gaps.  Only the 0th
> item seems to directly fit the current taxonomy...
>
> 0) exclusion via lack of awareness, interest, or expertise
> 1) exclusion via deletionism
> 2) exclusion via topic notability norms (including pop culture + current
> events)
> 3) exclusion via source notability + limiting source formats
> 4) exclusion via license pessimism
> 5) exclusion via file format (!) and codec pessimism
> 6) exclusion of dense specialist knowledge via review bottlenecks
> 7) exclusion via knowledge type [model, dataset, map layer]
> 8) exclusion / rejection via behavior on the projects
> 9) exclusion / rejection under 1-4 via differential application of policy
>
> Some of these, like file-format and review-bottleneck exclusion, are
> primarily technical restrictions.
> Some of these, like the first ~4 above, are social+regulatory+technical
> restrictions that could be alleviated with simple tools (including
> extensions, alternatives, and sandboxes) -- just as nupedia's social
> restrictions were alleviated w/ the technical solution of a wiki for the
> drafting stage.
> And the last two are purely social restrictions, projecting systemic bias
> in the community of practice onto who joins and what contributions are
> welcomed. I'd like to see that subset of gaps addressed directly, and not
> split up across other parts of a taxonomy.
>
> ===
> Wiki♥, Sam.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [feedback requested] Taxonomy of knowledge gaps

[Leila Zia]

Hi all,

I'd like to give an update about where we are and what's next.

* We are one week in the feedback collection. You have almost 2 more
weeks if you're interested to provide feedback.

* A big thank you to those of you who have already started engaging
with the feedback process and thanks to those of you who intend to do
it. We know this is no small ask and we appreciate your generosity to
share your perspectives with us and help us improve the work. You can
share your feedback at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Knowledge_Gaps_Index/Taxonomy#Feedback_collection_September_2020
.

* For those of you who are interested to talk with us in a more high
bandwidth set-up where we can do more back-and-forths: we have
dedicated our upcoming Research Showcase to this topic. You will hear
a presentation about this work followed by at least 30-min time for
Q More information in a separate email sent about the showcase and
at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Showcase#September_2020
.

If you have questions, please let us know. (SJ: we have not forgotten
you. We still intend to get back to you.)

Thank you!

Leila on behalf of
Martin Gerlach, Research Scientist, WMF
Isaac Johnson, Research Scientist, WMF
Miriam Redi, Senior Research Scientist, WMF
Leila Zia, Head of Research, WMF

On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 3:47 PM Leila Zia  wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I hope this email finds you well.
>
> I'm reaching out to let you know that the Research team [1] at the
> Wikimedia Foundation has been working on developing a taxonomy of
> knowledge gaps for the Wikimedia projects. We now have the first draft
> of the taxonomy ready and we're seeking your input to improve it.
>
> ==Why are we contacting you?==
> The taxonomy of knowledge gaps aims to be a high level representation
> and grouping of the different knowledge gaps Wikimedia projects face
> today. Each of you, whether you are a volunteer editor, patroller,
> organizer, affiliate, etc. have valuable on the ground knowledge of
> the different types of knowledge gaps. We believe it's important to
> hear from you before we finalize the taxonomy.
>
> ==Material==
> The material you may need to review is listed at
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Knowledge_Gaps_Index/Taxonomy#Learn_more!
> . I will list them below as well, for archive completeness:
>
> * A summary of the taxonomy and motivation:
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Knowledge_Gaps_Taxonomy_Summary-and-Motivation.pdf
>
> * Full paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.12314
>
> * A video presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP3uXA9bfvU or
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Knowledge_Gaps_Taxonomy.mp4.webm
> (same video on two platforms)
>
> ==Feedback==
> Please provide your feedback by answering the 6 questions posted at
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Knowledge_Gaps_Index/Taxonomy#Feedback_collection_September_2020
> .
>
> We're collecting feedback until 2020-09-30.
>
> ==Talk with us==
> If you have questions about the taxonomy and you'd like to talk with
> us in a synchronous set-up, we invite you to join us in the upcoming
> Research Showcase
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Showcase#September_2020
> . We will have a very short presentation about it and will leave 15-20
> min for any questions you may have. We are also happy to set up more
> time to answer your questions if there is demand for it.
>
> ==Disclaimer==
> As you're going through the material we have shared with you, you will
> see imperfections and rooms for improvement. I acknowledge that they
> exist and they may be numerous. We could spend another month and
> improve the documents. We made the call to not let perfect be the
> enemy of good. Please keep that in mind, assume good faith, and ask
> questions if any part of what you read is not clear to you. We're here
> to engage and answer your questions, and ultimately learn about your
> perspective.
>
> Thank you!
>
> Leila, on behalf of
> Martin Gerlach, Research Scientist, WMF
> Isaac Johnson, Research Scientist, WMF
> Miriam Redi, Senior Research Scientist, WMF
> Leila Zia, Head of Research, WMF
>
> [1] https://research.wikimedia.org/team.html

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [feedback requested] Taxonomy of knowledge gaps

[Leila Zia]

Hi SJ,

* I made a note for us to address your question about the meta-gaps as
part of the update to the taxonomy paper:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Research_talk:Knowledge_Gaps_Index/Taxonomy=revision=20480121=20477349=source

* We did get a chance to discuss this as a team. Here is what I heard:
** We all think this is an important point you have raised. Thank you!
We will think more about it and if you have ideas about such
meta-gaps, please tell us (ideally in the meta page where we're
collecting feedback).
** One meta-gap that quickly surfaced was our (over?)reliance on past
research and documentation that is written in English. When we look
for references, by default we look for those in English, even when
collectively in the team we speak French, German, Italian, Spanish,
Persian, and Portuguese, (if not more), too.

This answer is complete. I'm sending it your way just so you know we
will think more, your thoughts are welcome, and we will add this to
the final taxonomy documentation.

Thanks,
Leila


On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 1:46 PM Leila Zia  wrote:
>
> Hi SJ,
>
> Please see below.
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 2:15 PM Samuel Klein  wrote:
>>
>> Wow.  Thanks for doing this.
>>  a) did you mine emijrp's subconscious yet?
>
>
> (I assume you are referring to their work in 
> https://github.com/emijrp/all-human-knowledge .)
>
> We indeed reviewed the work as a source. There are two aspects in emijrp's 
> work that are very helpful: 1) what constitutes a content gap? 2) how to 
> measure it?
>
> Now that you mentioned it: I'll reach out to them to seek their feedback more 
> actively. thanks!
>
>>
>>  b) what meta-gaps are you aware of (areas where the gap analysis itself
>> might have blind spots)
>
>
> This is a great question. I have some answers for you; we will talk as a team 
> and get back to you on this.
>
>>
>>  c) this seems appropriate for a wikijournal
>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiJournal> of knowledge...
>
>
> noted down.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 6:48 PM Leila Zia  wrote:
>>
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > I hope this email finds you well.
>> >
>> > I'm reaching out to let you know that the Research team [1] at the
>> > Wikimedia Foundation has been working on developing a taxonomy of
>> > knowledge gaps for the Wikimedia projects. We now have the first draft
>> > of the taxonomy ready and we're seeking your input to improve it.
>> >
>> > ==Why are we contacting you?==
>> > The taxonomy of knowledge gaps aims to be a high level representation
>> > and grouping of the different knowledge gaps Wikimedia projects face
>> > today. Each of you, whether you are a volunteer editor, patroller,
>> > organizer, affiliate, etc. have valuable on the ground knowledge of
>> > the different types of knowledge gaps. We believe it's important to
>> > hear from you before we finalize the taxonomy.
>> >
>> > ==Material==
>> > The material you may need to review is listed at
>> >
>> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Knowledge_Gaps_Index/Taxonomy#Learn_more
>> > !
>> > . I will list them below as well, for archive completeness:
>> >
>> > * A summary of the taxonomy and motivation:
>> >
>> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Knowledge_Gaps_Taxonomy_Summary-and-Motivation.pdf
>> >
>> > * Full paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.12314
>> >
>> > * A video presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP3uXA9bfvU or
>> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Knowledge_Gaps_Taxonomy.mp4.webm
>> > (same video on two platforms)
>> >
>> > ==Feedback==
>> > Please provide your feedback by answering the 6 questions posted at
>> >
>> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Knowledge_Gaps_Index/Taxonomy#Feedback_collection_September_2020
>> > .
>> >
>> > We're collecting feedback until 2020-09-30.
>> >
>> > ==Talk with us==
>> > If you have questions about the taxonomy and you'd like to talk with
>> > us in a synchronous set-up, we invite you to join us in the upcoming
>> > Research Showcase
>> > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Showcase#September_2020
>> > . We will have a very short presentation about it and will leave 15-20
>> > min for any questions you may have. We are also happy to set up more
>> > time to answer your questions if there is demand for it.
>> >
>> > ==Disclaimer==
>> > A

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid API?

[Leila Zia]

Hi Victoria,

I hope you're doing well. Please see below.

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 12:19 PM Victoria Coleman
 wrote:
>
> The WMF Cloud Services team can totally provide the needed support. The 
> Foundation would have to invest them to build up the team which is over 
> stretched but that should easily pay for itself as revenue starts flowing in 
> from the paid API.

You have worked in WMF and you are more deeply familiar with the
internal workings of WMF, however, for the sake of others who read
your comments above, I'd like to share some thoughts:

* I have concerns about specific teams in WMF being volunteered on a
public list for a project or work. As you know, adding a project to a
team's set of responsibilities is not just about making a financial
investment. Teams usually have plans for what they want to do over the
coming 1-2 years and expanding the scope of their work or the
diversity of what they need to manage can have major implications for
the teams.

Instead, I encourage us to ask the question "what does it take to be
able to do x in our own infrastructure?" when we know this is the kind
of experiment that has worked.

* As has been shared before, the project is at the "experiment" level.
When we don't know if an idea even works or not, we want to be mindful
of our time investments. I personally want to be able to trust the
team who is responsible for the project in assessing where the best
place to invest their time is as they have better visibility into the
work and the resources that are available to them.

* You said "The Foundation would have to invest them to build up the
team [...]". I want to be very explicit: the problem of where to
invest the WMF resources is a very very complex problem. There are
many important projects and ideas in WMF, all potentially with big
impact, and there are, as you had more visibility into during your
tenure, critical efforts that can benefit from much more investments.
The c-team has a hard job each time they make resourcing decisions:
they can't think about one project or one team only. They need to take
into account the portfolio of projects and needs the WMF has and
figure out where to invest. You and I may or may not agree with their
decisions, however, I'd caution us from assuming that this is the kind
of problem that we can easily solve once we're in their shoes.

Best,
Leila

--
Leila Zia
Head of Research
Wikimedia Foundation

> Victoria
>
> > On Jul 9, 2020, at 1:38 PM, Kunal Mehta  wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2020-07-09 13:15, Dan Garry (Deskana) wrote:
> >> Which cloud provider would you recommend?
> >
> > Wikimedia Cloud Services, which incidentally, has the fastest network
> > connection to Wikimedia sites by virtue of it being hosted *inside* the
> > cluster.
> >
> > -- Legoktm
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Final report on the Techstorm 2019

[Leila Zia]

Hi Ciell,

I did a pass over your report and I want to share a few thoughts with
you and the rest of the team.

* First: Thank you so much for organizing another Techstorm in 2019
and writing/sharing this report. Increasing the diversity of those who
choose to participate in the Wikimedia projects is important and your
knowledge sharing is immensely helpful.

* 63 participants is a really good number. Congratulations! I also
appreciate that you set a high bar for the target distribution of
attendees. Ambitious (but not over-ambitious) targets can help us grow
and learn. One thing we learned (in 2020) when organizing Wiki
Workshop [1] was that when there is no fee for registration, we get
twice the actual number of participants registering. Something you can
consider is to allow for more registrations than what you can
physically accommodate (to a limit), with the understanding that there
will always be some no-shows/cancellations.

* I have a suggestion for how you conduct the survey: consider doing
it during the event and dedicating 15-min time to it. I understand
some people may prefer to take their time and do it later, but by
asking people to do it right there, you may get a higher response
rate. (Chasing folks after the event for surveys is not fun for either
side.;)

* Core organizing team size: Looking at the 2019 team, I totally agree
with you. A few more volunteers at the core level will be very
helpful. They also can make it more fun as you can bounce ideas
back-and-forth with them and collaborate. :)

* For 2021: consider a virtual event if a physical one is not possible
and if you have bandwidth to work on it. A lot of people are isolated
because of the pandemic and they look forward to finding ways to
connect with others, learn new skills, etc.

I want to close this email by thanking you all again. I also want to
thank you personally, Ciell, for the spirit of collaboration and fun
you bring to the projects you get involved in, and your dedication to
community building. What you all are doing is not easy, especially as
numbers won't do justice to the impact of the work. Thank you for
keeping up and organizing this event.

If there is something I can do to support you, please reach out.

Best,
Leila


[1] https://wikiworkshop.org/

--
Leila Zia
Head of Research
Wikimedia Foundation

On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 7:56 AM Ciell Wikipedia
 wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> It gives me great pleasure to (finally) share with you the evaluation report 
> of the Techstorm* 2019. Though the Techstorm was organized in November 2019, 
> other priorities came to play for the organisational team due to the global 
> pandemic, but over the past festive season and after, we finally found the 
> time to finish up our evaluation report.
>
> Please go to the pdf-file on Commons to read more about the vision behind the 
> Techstorm, the goals of the event, our metrics and, last but not least, our 
> lessons learned.
>
> A new Techstorm 2021 is in the Dutch chapters' annual plan, but if Covid 
> regulations will not permit these gatherings we will ask WMNL to include a 
> Techstorm in the annual plan 2022.
>
> Keep techstorming every one!
>
> Vriendelijke groet,
> Ciell
>
> * Techstorming is like brainstorming in a technical environment. The Wiki 
> Techstorm 2019 was held in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, on the 22nd & 23rd of 
> November 2019.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Surveys using third party tools on Wikimedia projects

[Leila Zia]

Hi folks,

Disclaimer: I'm not speaking on behalf of WMF. I'm sharing my personal
views based on what I've learned over the years working with different
survey tools.

* Freedom and Open Source is a guiding principle [1] for the Wikimedia
Foundation and something I personally deeply care about. The relevant
section of [1] reads "As an organization, we strive to use open source
tools over proprietary ones, although we use proprietary or closed
tools (such as software, operating systems, etc.) where there is
currently no open-source tool that will effectively meet our needs".
In the case of surveys, I've actively looked for open-source tools
multiple times (every couple of years) and I have not been able to
find one that satisfies our needs effectively. This doesn't mean the
search is over. One day we may find one.

* We need to be able to run surveys effectively and across
languages/projects if we are interested in learning from editors and
readers without relying on proxy measures that are inaccurate and
simply put, in many instances problematic (think about models that
attempt to predict the gender of the users on Twitter using the style
of tweeting or usernames or profile images :( ). Within my team,
Research, we have benefited from surveys to understand what are the
needs and motivations of readers across many languages [2] or better
understand the global gender differences in readership [3].

* I agree with Risker's point that the surveys are optional. Of
course, I also know that it's important to decrease the barriers for
everyone who wants to participate to be able to participate (because
we want to have more equity).

* Given that surveys have real use-cases for many across the movement,
I appreciate Łukasz's point that if you are to ban an existing
solution, it would be essential that you also propose a viable path
forward.

* As others have mentioned, some of the sentiment on this thread is
not new. Back in 2015 a Phabricator ticket was opened to address it:
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T94807 . The ticket  shifted to what
survey tool is compatible with WMF's Privacy Policy and there are
clear responses on the ticket. For those of you interested to explore
open source options, that ticket may have good pointers for further
exploration.

Best,
Leila


[1] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles#Freedom_and_open_source
[2] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1812.00474.pdf
[3] https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.10403


--
Leila Zia
Head of Research
Wikimedia Foundation

On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 12:30 PM Gregory Varnum  wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Thank you for discussing this matter. The Wikimedia Foundation takes the 
> safety and privacy of volunteers very seriously. I recognize that among the 
> concerns is that the identities of LGBTQ+ members of the movement could be 
> revealed to anti-LGBTQ entities and governments. As someone who has 
> previously worked in advocacy for victims of anti-LGBTQ+ related crimes and 
> acts of discrimination, I am personally very invested in mitigating that 
> risk. After speaking with my colleagues at the Foundation, I wanted to clear 
> up a few topics which have been raised here.
>
> == Commitment to Free & Open Source & Security ==
>
> In all platforms and software used in community interactions, our Security 
> and Legal teams are involved in reviewing possible solutions to ensure that 
> we are minimizing risks to our communities’ safety and privacy as well as the 
> security of our technical infrastructure. While we can never completely 
> remove all risks, we are making an increasingly strong effort to balance our 
> resources and technology values to find the best solution for our needs - as 
> well as the needs of the volunteers and readers of the projects we support.
>
> For the most part, this process allows us to honor our commitment to 
> open-source software and utilize solutions already available - such as our 
> recent adoption of Matrix in internal communications and our continued usage 
> of Phabricator for technical bug tracking. In some cases, there are 
> proprietary solutions that better fit our needs - such as our payroll systems 
> and staff email solutions. Finally, there are also times when there are no 
> solutions available and we need to develop our open-source solutions[1] - 
> such as to address how languages appear on a webpage or to help reduce our 
> site's bandwidth usage. We do not always have the resources to develop our 
> own solutions to processes not core to the operations of the wikis or where a 
> solution already exists that works as well or better than anything we could 
> realistically develop.
>
> == Survey tools ==
>
> With regards to surveys, we have previously tested and attempted to use open 
> source solutions such as LimeSurvey. We will continue to keep an eye on th

[Wikimedia-l] Re: [Wikidata] Re: Re: Toolhub 1.0 is launched! Discover software tools used at Wikimedia

[Leila Zia]

Hi Bodhisattwa,

See below.

On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 1:41 PM Bodhisattwa Mandal
 wrote:
>
> Also, is there any way to add info on existing tools?

I learned from Bryan yesterday that this is possible via toolsadmin
(Bryan helped with one of our tools yesterday via
https://toolsadmin.wikimedia.org/tools/id/wikinav for that particular
tool). Toolhub then updates the list of tools every hour and you
should see your tool in toolhub. I hope this helps.

And congratulations to all of you who have been involved in making
this launch and product happen. :)

Leila

>
> Regards,
> Bodhisattwa
>
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2021 at 19:53, Birgit Müller  wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Galder :-) - answers are below:
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 9:38 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga 
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks, Brigit, for this hub, it is great to have it! I have tried and 
>>> can't find any way to look for tools that are not nominated as "Coolest 
>>> Tool Award" besides looking for name. Is there a way for searching by 
>>> categories?
>>
>>
>> Today you can try searching for various keywords to find tools in the 
>> catalog (i.e. "Wikidata", "image", "editor", "template" ...). We're 
>> interested in adding support for the community to organize tools in 
>> categories/based on use cases in the future. There are some notes from past 
>> Design Research on that in the Data Model documentation. [0]
>>
>> Please feel welcome to comment on the talk page if you have further 
>> questions or ideas! [1]
>>
>> Birgit
>>
>> [0] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Toolhub/Data_model#Tool_use_cases
>> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Toolhub
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Galder
>>> 
>>> From: Birgit Müller 
>>> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2021 4:58 PM
>>> To: wikitech-l ; 
>>> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org ; 
>>> Wikimedia Cloud Services general discussion and support 
>>> ; wikid...@lists.wikimedia.org 
>>> ; wikitech-ambassad...@lists.wikimedia.org 
>>> 
>>> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Toolhub 1.0 is launched! Discover software tools 
>>> used at Wikimedia
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> We are happy to announce the launch of Toolhub – a community-authored 
>>> catalogue that aims to make software tools used in the Wikimedia movement 
>>> discoverable to everyone.
>>>
>>>
>>> Community developed tools – including web applications, bots, gadgets, user 
>>> scripts, lua modules, and more – play a significant role in the Wikimedia 
>>> projects. These software applications address a wide range of use cases 
>>> including finding bad faith edits and other content curation, bulk editing, 
>>> collecting statistical information, creating special citations, and much 
>>> more. About ⅓ of all edits are made by bots and tools. In addition, 
>>> semi-automated edits are helped by user scripts, gadgets, and other editing 
>>> assistance tools that run from the user's local computer or directly inside 
>>> the wikis. There are thousands of tools available, but how can you find 
>>> them?
>>>
>>>
>>> With Toolhub, you can document and find tools, promote their use in your 
>>> wiki community, and help improve them by contributing data. You can create 
>>> and share lists of tools relevant to your work - for example, for GLAM 
>>> tools, or for wiki projects such as Women in Red.
>>>
>>>
>>> This first release provides a core set of functionalities, and contains an 
>>> initial data set of about 1500 tools. Most of the initial tools in the 
>>> catalog are imported from the same data files developers have created for 
>>> Hay's Directory which has been a major inspiration for Toolhub.
>>>
>>>
>>> Toolhub serves developers and users of tools alike. It is part of our 
>>> efforts to improve the infrastructure and services for technical 
>>> contributors, captured under one of Technology’s top level objectives in 
>>> the FY 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 annual plans: Tech Community Building. We 
>>> hope to continue conversations with developers and users of tools, plan to 
>>> improve Toolhub, and to further expand the functionality.
>>>
>>>
>>> A collaborative system and open developer platform
>>>
>>> Toolhub is built as an API driven platform that makes it possible to extend 
>>> and remix the catalogue, and to make collecting and reusing information 
>>> about tools as open and collaborative as we can. Everything that can be 
>>> done interactively with the Toolhub website can also be done remotely 
>>> through the API. We would love to hear from technical contributors 
>>> interested in using the Toolhub API to build new tools that make new ways 
>>> to add or consume information from Toolhub's catalog.
>>>
>>>
>>> Our decision record and weekly progress reports on Meta provide more 
>>> insights in technical implementation details and decisions made throughout 
>>> the development process. The Toolhub/About page provides information on 
>>> project origin, research, use cases, data model, and roadmap. This 
>>> recording from a lightning 

[Wikimedia-l] Apply for or raise awareness about the Wikimedia Research Fund

[Leila Zia]

Hi all,

We're excited to announce the launch of the Wikimedia Research Fund
[1] with the goal of diversifying the network of Wikimedia researchers
globally and supporting the Wikimedia Movement in deeper understanding
of the projects, decision making, and building new
technologies.

We're sending you this email because you yourself may be interested to
apply for the fund. We also would like to ask you to raise awareness
about the fund in your local communities. Many of you have knowledge
of important open research questions for your communities, or have
connections to research institutions or researchers who may be
interested to do more on the Wikimedia projects.

The deadline to apply is January 3, 2022. We intend to give funds of
value USD 2k-50k.

More info at 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Programs/Wikimedia_Research_%26_Technology_Fund#Wikimedia_Research_Fund
.

Big thanks to Emily Lescak for all her behind-the-scenes work to make
the launch of the Research Fund possible, and to the Community
Resources team at the Wikimedia Foundation for giving us the
opportunity and the funds.

If you have questions, please reach out to us at
research_f...@wikimedia.org,  meta [2], here, or in one of our
upcoming office hours [3]! :)

Best,
the Research Fund committee chairs
Benjamin Mako Hill (University of Washington)
Leila Zia (Wikimedia Foundation)

[1] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Programs/Wikimedia_Research_%26_Technology_Fund#Wikimedia_Research_Fund
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:Start
[3] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Programs/Wikimedia_Research_%26_Technology_Fund#Office_Hours
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/CGL7Z553YDQCA4GA5HEUMDSVHPOI3GIJ/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: [Wiki-research-l] Re: The Wikimedia Foundation Research Award of the Year - Call for Nominations

[Leila Zia]

Hi all,

We gave the option of accepting nominations in more languages some
more thought. I want to be very honest: I don't have a good solution
to accommodate more languages in this cycle. We considered the option
of allowing/encouraging nominations in other languages, and not doing
the broader search we do in English in those languages. However, even
this option is not really guaranteed to work because we consider
"scholarly publications" which can be papers of a few pages or books
that can be hundreds of pages. We cannot guarantee that we can
translate the scholarly publication (independent of its length)
in-time for the review.

Given the above, my suggestion to you is that if you know of a
scholarly publication that is in another language than English and you
think we should consider it, still nominate it. We will consider it,
even if I can't guarantee that we review it.

I'm sorry that I am not able to offer a better solution for this
cycle. We will continue thinking about this point for the future
cycles.

Best,
Leila

On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 12:46 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
 wrote:
>
> Hi Leila,
> I have read it, that's why I'm confused.
> ________
> From: Leila Zia 
> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 9:40 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Cc: wiki-researc...@lists.wikimedia.org 
> ; Discussion list for the Wikidata 
> project. 
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: [Wiki-research-l] Re: The Wikimedia Foundation 
> Research Award of the Year - Call for Nominations
>
> Hi Galder,
>
> Please see below.
>
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 12:26 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
>  wrote:
> >
> > Thanks, Leila, for answering the question raised.
>
> Anytime.
>
> > I'm a bit confused with this, I supposed that the Wikimedia Foundation 
> > Research Award was an initiative from the Research team of the WMF 
> > (https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research), but I read in your 
> > answer that "WikiResearch is primarily in English and about research 
> > published in English". I understand that the main working language of the 
> > WMF is English, as this mailing list is, but I would assume that an Award 
> > promoted by the WMF should be multilingual.
>
> Sorry. Let me clarify. What I was referring to when I used
> WikiResearch in my email was the WikiResearch twitter account:
> https://twitter.com/WikiResearch . I did not intend to refer to the
> WMF Research team or Wikimedia Research community. And to repeat: this
> is one source we use to find research done on the Wikimedia projects.
> There are other sources as I mentioned in my response.
>
> > Me, as a Basque Wikimedians User Group member, I promote Wikimedia 
> > activities in Basque language, because that is our goal. But the WMF is not 
> > the English Wikimedians User Group, as far as I understand. Our designated 
> > lingua franca may be English, but the WMF can't exclude research that is 
> > not made in this language from an Award. I would understand if the 
> > (non-existing) English Wikimedians User Group created the "EWUG Research in 
> > English Award of the Year", but is not the case.
>
> I understand and acknowledge your point about inclusion. I hope some
> of the points I shared about our existing process in my other email
> can help you find possible solutions we can consider doing. :) On my
> end: I have a todo to come back to you all.
>
> Best,
> Leila
>
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Galder
> >
> > 
> > From: Leila Zia 
> > Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:04 PM
> > To: wiki-researc...@lists.wikimedia.org 
> > 
> > Cc: Wikimedia Mailing List ; Discussion 
> > list for the Wikidata project. 
> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: [Wiki-research-l] Re: The Wikimedia Foundation 
> > Research Award of the Year - Call for Nominations
> >
> > Hi all, Thank you for your feedback. I take your comments as a sign of
> > genuine care and I'm happy to engage and learn with you how we can do
> > better. (Note: I'm responding to all lists, though some of the
> > feedback has been sent only to wikimedia-l.)
> >
> > * Galder, Gereon, Xavier, Gnangarra, and Andy: thank you for your feedback.
> >
> > * Andy, I'll respond to your comment first. We do not require the work
> > to be published under a free license for us to consider it for the
> > award. However, if the work is shortlisted, we reach out to the
> > authors, tell them that it's shortlisted, and it can be considered for
> > the award if the work is at least made publicly available. At that
> > point, we also encourage the authors to publish under a free license

[Wikimedia-l] Re: [Wiki-research-l] Re: The Wikimedia Foundation Research Award of the Year - Call for Nominations

[Leila Zia]

Hi Galder,

Please see below.

On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 12:26 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
 wrote:
>
> Thanks, Leila, for answering the question raised.

Anytime.

> I'm a bit confused with this, I supposed that the Wikimedia Foundation 
> Research Award was an initiative from the Research team of the WMF 
> (https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research), but I read in your 
> answer that "WikiResearch is primarily in English and about research 
> published in English". I understand that the main working language of the WMF 
> is English, as this mailing list is, but I would assume that an Award 
> promoted by the WMF should be multilingual.

Sorry. Let me clarify. What I was referring to when I used
WikiResearch in my email was the WikiResearch twitter account:
https://twitter.com/WikiResearch . I did not intend to refer to the
WMF Research team or Wikimedia Research community. And to repeat: this
is one source we use to find research done on the Wikimedia projects.
There are other sources as I mentioned in my response.

> Me, as a Basque Wikimedians User Group member, I promote Wikimedia activities 
> in Basque language, because that is our goal. But the WMF is not the English 
> Wikimedians User Group, as far as I understand. Our designated lingua franca 
> may be English, but the WMF can't exclude research that is not made in this 
> language from an Award. I would understand if the (non-existing) English 
> Wikimedians User Group created the "EWUG Research in English Award of the 
> Year", but is not the case.

I understand and acknowledge your point about inclusion. I hope some
of the points I shared about our existing process in my other email
can help you find possible solutions we can consider doing. :) On my
end: I have a todo to come back to you all.

Best,
Leila

> Cheers,
>
> Galder
>
> 
> From: Leila Zia 
> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:04 PM
> To: wiki-researc...@lists.wikimedia.org 
> Cc: Wikimedia Mailing List ; Discussion list 
> for the Wikidata project. 
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: [Wiki-research-l] Re: The Wikimedia Foundation 
> Research Award of the Year - Call for Nominations
>
> Hi all, Thank you for your feedback. I take your comments as a sign of
> genuine care and I'm happy to engage and learn with you how we can do
> better. (Note: I'm responding to all lists, though some of the
> feedback has been sent only to wikimedia-l.)
>
> * Galder, Gereon, Xavier, Gnangarra, and Andy: thank you for your feedback.
>
> * Andy, I'll respond to your comment first. We do not require the work
> to be published under a free license for us to consider it for the
> award. However, if the work is shortlisted, we reach out to the
> authors, tell them that it's shortlisted, and it can be considered for
> the award if the work is at least made publicly available. At that
> point, we also encourage the authors to publish under a free license
> and share with them a few ways they may be able to (even if the work
> is published somewhere already with restrictions). The issue of
> licenses is on top of our mind and we actively look for ways to push
> for more Wikimedia research work to be published under free licenses.
>
> * I am going to share with you some of my thoughts, and a possible
> improvement we can make in the process.
>
> ** Let's try to keep things simple to be able to improve things
> together. This is not a case of "WMF did x". The idea of the award was
> created in the Research team, and both last year and this year, we've
> been grateful to have the support of researchers outside of WMF for
> it. (Aaron Shaw (Northwestern University), and Benjamin Mako Hill (U.
> of Washington)). I take full responsibility for the execution of the
> award and I can take your feedback and see where we can improve the
> process. :)
>
> ** In order to be able to improve the process, I should share more
> details about how we do the search for the publications first. We have
> multiple sources for searching for research published in a given year:
> 1. The nomination process we shared on this thread.
> 2. Research publications shared in WikiResearch twitter account.
> 3. External research search engines and repositories for different
> fields: we use scholar.google.com, dblp.org and more.
>
> To give you a sense of the distribution of scholarly publications we
> identified last year from each of the above sources: 11 nominations
> and 170+ research publications through the twitter account and
> external searches. The award chairs (2 people; this year it is going
> to be Mako and I) reviewed all identified publications. We discussed
> every publication at varying depth depending on the result of our
> initial reviews.

[Wikimedia-l] Re: [Wiki-research-l] Re: The Wikimedia Foundation Research Award of the Year - Call for Nominations

[Leila Zia]

Hi all, Thank you for your feedback. I take your comments as a sign of
genuine care and I'm happy to engage and learn with you how we can do
better. (Note: I'm responding to all lists, though some of the
feedback has been sent only to wikimedia-l.)

* Galder, Gereon, Xavier, Gnangarra, and Andy: thank you for your feedback.

* Andy, I'll respond to your comment first. We do not require the work
to be published under a free license for us to consider it for the
award. However, if the work is shortlisted, we reach out to the
authors, tell them that it's shortlisted, and it can be considered for
the award if the work is at least made publicly available. At that
point, we also encourage the authors to publish under a free license
and share with them a few ways they may be able to (even if the work
is published somewhere already with restrictions). The issue of
licenses is on top of our mind and we actively look for ways to push
for more Wikimedia research work to be published under free licenses.

* I am going to share with you some of my thoughts, and a possible
improvement we can make in the process.

** Let's try to keep things simple to be able to improve things
together. This is not a case of "WMF did x". The idea of the award was
created in the Research team, and both last year and this year, we've
been grateful to have the support of researchers outside of WMF for
it. (Aaron Shaw (Northwestern University), and Benjamin Mako Hill (U.
of Washington)). I take full responsibility for the execution of the
award and I can take your feedback and see where we can improve the
process. :)

** In order to be able to improve the process, I should share more
details about how we do the search for the publications first. We have
multiple sources for searching for research published in a given year:
1. The nomination process we shared on this thread.
2. Research publications shared in WikiResearch twitter account.
3. External research search engines and repositories for different
fields: we use scholar.google.com, dblp.org and more.

To give you a sense of the distribution of scholarly publications we
identified last year from each of the above sources: 11 nominations
and 170+ research publications through the twitter account and
external searches. The award chairs (2 people; this year it is going
to be Mako and I) reviewed all identified publications. We discussed
every publication at varying depth depending on the result of our
initial reviews.

** Knowing the process, there are at least a few ways I think the
process must be improved. I'm sure now that you see more you can
critique even more. :) I proactively share with you some of them here:
::* I need to have an easychair account to nominate. That can/must
change (but to what? we want these nominations to be private, and we
need a way to be able to process them efficiently because we're only 2
people. We are considering openreview.net for the future years because
they're open source; but they still have other limitations. For this
year, easychair it is.).
::* We need more people on the committee: both for workload sharing,
and also including more perspectives. (This is /a lot/ to ask of
researchers. I'm grateful that Mako and Aaron have supported us in the
past.)
::* We need other non-English sources to source community research.
(WikiResearch is primarily in English and about research published in
English.)
::* The shared language of reviewers is assumed to be English. If we
are going to at scale consider other languages, then we need a way
that this group of people can converse on academic topics with one
another without having to share a language.

** I also understand the reality of the resources available to me and
our team. I understand the importance of working on multiple fronts
with regards to the research community (Wikimedia Research Funds, Wiki
Workshop, global research competitions, research showcases, monthly
office hours, talks and presentations, formal collaborations, and
more). I believe in the importance of motivation (and we have seen a
very good momentum around the award idea from last year's run). We
need to do many things, with very limited resources; Our values and
ideals are important and we have to attempt to hold them all as we
make decisions. In practice, sometimes we can't meet all the ambitions
we have. We need to make trade-offs. What is important is to be aware,
to listen, to try to improve, and to be honest.

I will leave you with the above and I commit to talk with Mako to
consider ways to open up the process for more languages to be included
(in 2021 or in 2022+; I can't promise changes for the 2021 process.).
One of us will write back here with what we decide to do.

Thanks,
Leila

On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 5:42 AM Andy Mabbett  wrote:
>
> On Fri, 7 Jan 2022 at 19:48, Leila Zia  wrote:
>
> > =Eligibility criteria=
>
> > * The publication must be available in English.
>
> I echo othe

[Wikimedia-l] The Wikimedia Foundation Research Award of the Year - Call for Nominations

[Leila Zia]

[Apologies for cross-posting.]

Hi all,

We invite you to nominate one or more scholarly research publications
to be considered for the Wikimedia Foundation Research Award of the
Year. Learn more below.

=Purpose of the award=
Recognize recent research on or about the Wikimedia projects or recent
research that is of importance to the Wikimedia projects. Recognize
the researchers behind the research.

You can learn more about 2021's winners at
https://research.wikimedia.org/awards.html .

=Eligibility criteria=
Your nomination must meet the following criteria:

* The research must be on, about, using data from, and/or of
importance to Wikipedia, Wikidata, Wikisource, Wikimedia Commons or
other Wikimedia projects.

* The publication must be available in English.

* The research must have been published between January 1, 2021 and
December 31, 2021.

=Nomination process=
Submit your nominations by 2022-02-07 through
https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=wmfray2021 . We will ask you
to provide the following information in your nomination:

* Title of the manuscript
* A copy of the manuscript you are nominating
* A summary of the research and a clear justification for why the work
merits the award (in 350 words or fewer in English).

Note that self-nominations and nominations of others' work are both welcome.

==Winner(s)==
The winner(s) will be announced in a ceremony as part of Wiki Workshop
2022: https://wikiworkshop.org/2022/ .

If you have any questions, please contact us at
wmf-ray-2...@easychair.org or here.

Best,
Benjamin Mako Hill (University of Washington)
Leila Zia (Wikimedia Foundation)
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/FNHJ3W75VLTAIRSEHHYFVP6O7CPAXOCY/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Submit research proposals for funding - Wikimedia Research Fund

[Leila Zia]

Hi all,

Please raise awareness about the Wikimedia Research Fund if you know
researchers who are interested to conduct research on the Wikimedia
projects and can benefit from financial support. More details in the email
below.

Best,
Leila

-- Forwarded message -
From: Leila Zia 
Date: Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 9:27 AM
Subject: Submit research proposals for funding - Wikimedia Research Fund
To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities <
wiki-researc...@lists.wikimedia.org>
Cc: Benj. Mako Hill , Emily Lescak 


Hi all,

We're really excited to announce the launch of the second *Wikimedia
Research Fund *with the goal of diversifying the network of Wikimedia
researchers globally and supporting the Wikimedia Movement in deeper
understanding of the projects, decision making, and building new
technologies.

If you are a Wikimedia researcher or you are interested in becoming one,
you can apply for research funds (USD 2K-50K) until December 16, 2022.
While all research proposals related to Wikimedia projects are welcome, we
particularly encourage research studies on medium to small size languages
and communities, as well as in low resourced languages and projects. You
can even propose to repeat a past study in a given language in another
language!

More info at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Programs/Wikimedia_Research_%26_Technology_Fund/Wikimedia_Research_Fund
.

*Apply by December 16, 2022* and/or spread the word!

If you have questions, please reach out to us at research_f...@wikimedia.org,
Meta-Wiki [1], here, or in one of our upcoming office hours (schedule will
be shared in [2] soon!)

Best,
the Research Fund committee chairs
Benjamin Mako Hill (University of Washington)
Leila Zia (Wikimedia Foundation)

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:Start

[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Programs/Wikimedia_Research_%26_Technology_Fund/Wikimedia_Research_Fund#Office_Hours
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/WKUKQ6A3CDC4DXOL3XC7BNSLEDBQLBNW/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org