[Wikimedia-l] Re: Give WMF feedback on model cards

2022-03-18 Thread Jonathan Morgan
+1. it’s a great forward-looking move. thanks teams!

Jonathan

> On Mar 18, 2022, at 9:09 AM, Steven Walling  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 3:50 PM Hal Triedman  wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> The WMF Privacy and Machine Learning Platform teams are developing model 
>> cards to increase visibility, transparency, and accountability of 
>> algorithmic decision-making on WMF platforms. The broad goal is for every ML 
>> model hosted by WMF to have a model card for the community and public to 
>> understand, discuss, and govern that model. 
>> 
>> We would love for you to give some feedback on the talk page of our 
>> prototype: 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:HTriedman_(WMF)/Language_Agnostic_Link-Based_Article_Topic_Model_Card
>> 
>> Thanks so much!
>> Hal
> 
> This is awesome. With all of us living our digital lives subject to so many 
> invisible filter bubbles this is a great approach to ensuring a good outcome 
> for Wikimedia readers, editors, and developers. Thanks for the work the team 
> is doing here! 
> 
> Steven 
> 
>> ___
>> 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/VAJLYCQYTPELZS3DBFC7HHVPW6MTPRBC/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
> ___
> 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/SKA2CO5NP23UPT5NZWUIQYNN3ZWLYOIU/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
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/NXLI6V2WK5DZBQYZKPJY2MI2I4SVDHR5/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: 100$ million dollars and still obsolete

2021-10-14 Thread Jonathan Morgan
It's not an issue of "WMF can't hire enough designers" or "WMF can't hire
good designers".

I worked for WMF in a design-adjacent role for the better part of a decade.
WMF has *excellent *designers, and in sufficient numbers to build a modern
user interface on desktop--one that *looks* modern and also prioritizes the
needs of Wikipedia's readers (editors can always load up an old skin if
they don't like the new one).

The mobile site and Wikipedia apps have a much more modern look-and-feel
and are clearly focused on making Wikipedia "work" for its largest set of
users: readers. If the desktop site lags on the design side, that may be
because when WMF has tried to make UI changes to the desktop site in the
past, or even just proposed them, they've received loud and angry push back
from members of a second (smaller, but equally important) set of users:
editors.

WMF, understandably, tries to avoid angering editors (believe it or not).

At the software company I work for now, if we make a change that annoys our
users--pretty much all of whom are "power users" with needs every bit as
complex and idiosyncratic as your average Admin--we hear about it. But no
one threatens to disable that change across the platform. And it's
relatively rare for a user to accuse us of being stupid or lazy or
malicious--at least, its rare on for that to happen on public mailing lists
or in our own forums.

That doesn't mean the stakes are any lower: if we make the software worse,
we probably lose customers. But we have the autonomy to make the changes in
the first place, see what happens, and then build from there or fix our
mistakes or even roll things back if we need to.

WMF product teams work in an environment where their competence and good
faith are frequently, and publicly, called into question. An environment
where one set of end users (editors) has a great deal of both *soft* and
*hard* power to block changes, even when those changes are intended
for--and indeed, primarily affect--a different set of end users (readers).

Speaking as someone who worked inside of that environment, I can say that
it can feel like even targeted, clearly motivated and well-justified
changes aimed at improving the reader experience aren't worth the cost.

There are plenty of other factors at play, but I'm sure I've already said
enough to anger plenty of you, so I'll leave it there.

I no longer work for WMF and my opinions are my own.

Cheers,
Jonathan Morgan
User:Jtmorgan
formerly, User:Jmorgan_(WMF)

On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 11:34 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Dear all,
> Today I learned that, despite having $100 million in the Endowment fund,
> we can't have a design team big enough to make our websites not look like
> they're stuck in 2001. I don't know if anyone is behind the wheel, but the
> car is expensive.
>
> Sincerely,
> Galder
>
> ___
> 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/NJUPLU2TDWLM5N5JFKQSODNCIIUW6ON7/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
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/XHB6JPWGITR4KGPMY3KBS56FMHL4VEG6/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 257, Issue 1

2021-09-02 Thread Jonathan Morgan
okay, enough of this. both of you. please stop.

Jonathan

> On Sep 2, 2021, at 12:11 AM, hillbillyholi...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> An even carefuller reader may have noticed that I did not actually call you 
> a Nazi -- I said your poor attitude might be also attributed to ignorance.  
> 
> If you bristle at being called "condescending" and "sneering", may I suggest 
> you stop comparing yourself to God when people criticize your actions.
> 
>> Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? 
>> declare, if thou hast understanding.
> 
> 
> MC
> ___
> 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/Z7FKGTZBCPRFVREHYJGURDT5HSGGL4QS/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
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/NETCMGNOQGLYVTTJP24OBKYFIQB5AVDJ/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Analytics] [Wikimedia Research Showcase] June 26, 2019 at 11:30 AM PST, 19:30 UTC

2019-06-27 Thread Jonathan Morgan
RhinosF1,

All talks are recorded and archived on YouTube, so the link below should
still work. Let me know if there's a problem with the archiving and I'll
see what I can do. I'm also working on getting all slides linked to from
the Showcase page on me.org, whenever possible!

It was a great series of talks this week. Hope you enjoy it! -J

On Wed, Jun 26, 2019, 19:04 RhinosF1 Wikipedia  wrote:

> For those that couldn't make it, Is there are summary of what was said?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> RhinosF1
>
> On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 at 18:58, Janna Layton  wrote:
>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> Just a reminder that this event will be happening in about half an hour!
>> Here's the Youtube link again:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiUfpmeJG7E
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 9:14 AM Janna Layton 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Time correction:
>>>
>>> The next Research Showcase will be live-streamed next Wednesday, June
>>> 26, at *11:30 AM PDT/18:30 UTC*.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 4:11 PM Janna Layton 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hi all,

 The next Research Showcase will be live-streamed this Wednesday, June
 26, at 11:30 AM PST/19:30 UTC. We will have three presentations this
 showcase, all relating to Wikipedia blocks.

 YouTube stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiUfpmeJG7E

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

 This month's presentations:

 Trajectories of Blocked Community Members: Redemption, Recidivism and
 Departure

 By Jonathan Chang, Cornell University

 Community norm violations can impair constructive communication and
 collaboration online. As a defense mechanism, community moderators often
 address such transgressions by temporarily blocking the perpetrator. Such
 actions, however, come with the cost of potentially alienating community
 members. Given this tradeoff, it is essential to understand to what extent,
 and in which situations, this common moderation practice is effective in
 reinforcing community rules. In this work, we introduce a computational
 framework for studying the future behavior of blocked users on Wikipedia.
 After their block expires, they can take several distinct paths: they can
 reform and adhere to the rules, but they can also recidivate, or
 straight-out abandon the community. We reveal that these trajectories are
 tied to factors rooted both in the characteristics of the blocked
 individual and in whether they perceived the block to be fair and
 justified. Based on these insights, we formulate a series of prediction
 tasks aiming to determine which of these paths a user is likely to take
 after being blocked for their first offense, and demonstrate the
 feasibility of these new tasks. Overall, this work builds towards a more
 nuanced approach to moderation by highlighting the tradeoffs that are in
 play.


 Automatic Detection of Online Abuse in Wikipedia

 By Lane Rasberry, University of Virginia

 Researchers analyzed all English Wikipedia blocks prior to 2018 using
 machine learning. With insights gained, the researchers examined all
 English Wikipedia users who are not blocked against the identified
 characteristics of blocked users. The results were a ranked set of
 predictions of users who are not blocked, but who have a history of conduct
 similar to that of blocked users. This research and process models a system
 for the use of computing to aid human moderators in identifying conduct on
 English Wikipedia which merits a block.

 Project page:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/University_of_Virginia/Automatic_Detection_of_Online_Abuse

 Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIhdb4-hKBo


 First Insights from Partial Blocks in Wikimedia Wikis

 By Morten Warncke-Wang, Wikimedia Foundation

 The Anti-Harassment Tools team at the Wikimedia Foundation released the
 partial block feature in early 2019. Where previously blocks on Wikimedia
 wikis were sitewide (users were blocked from editing an entire wiki),
 partial blocks makes it possible to block users from editing specific pages
 and/or namespaces. The Italian Wikipedia was the first wiki to start using
 this feature, and it has since been rolled out to other wikis as well. In
 this presentation, we will look at how this feature has been used in the
 first few months since release.


 --
 Janna Layton (she, her)
 Administrative Assistant - Audiences & Technology
 Wikimedia Foundation 

>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Janna Layton (she, her)
>>> Administrative Assistant - Audiences & Technology
>>> Wikimedia Foundation 
>>>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Structured data ethical implications

2019-05-23 Thread Jonathan Morgan
Hi Mister Thrapostibongles,

This is a good point and a valid consideration. WMF is starting to think
about issues like this, and what tools we have available to mitigate
unintended consequences of AI tech (even in cases where we're not building
the AI tech itself, but rather providing training data). I wrote up a white
paper

on this topic recently, in consultation with some other folks in research,
product, and legal. This isn't a policy (yet), just a proposal and a
conversation starter. Feedback and discussion welcome!

Best,
Jonathan



On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:50 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear all,
> There have been announcements about the Structured data project on Commons,
> that is intended to make it easier to view, search, edit, organize and
> re-use the metadata on media.  This is clearly of great value to
> researchers and developers in image recognition, who will have a large
> repository of tagged image files to train their AI implementations on.
>
> There is however an ethical issue here.  Readers will recall that Google
> discovered that its facial regonition software was prone to classifying
> African-American faces as "gorilla", because the training dataset had not
> contained enough non-white faces -- see for example The Verge
>
> https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/12/16882408/google-racist-gorillas-photo-recognition-algorithm-ai
>
>
> Is the Foundation confident that the Commons repository is sufficiently
> diverse that it can ethically offer it to others as a source of training
> data?
>
> Thrapostibongles
> ___
> 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,
> 



-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) 
(Uses He/Him)
___
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] Video Wiki

2019-02-28 Thread Jonathan Morgan
Could these videos be posted to YouTube?

In a recent talk , internet researcher
danah boyd makes the observation (around minute 15) that one of the
problems with conspiracy propagation in YouTube is that nobody generally
bothers to produce response videos to counteract disinformation narratives.
So people who use YouTube to get their "news" (<-- a HUGE number of younger
internet users) are never exposed to the truth around these subjects.

Many of us are aware that last year YouTube tried, somewhat
problematically, to link to Wikipedia articles in an attempt to counter
disinformation. But it would be even more useful to* insert factual
information into the YouTube ecosystem itself*. It seems to me that
VideoWiki tool gives our Movement a powerful new tool to counter
disinformation in a more timely manner.

Imagine a 4 minute video that pulls from multiple Wikipedia articles and
other WM data sources and which is designed to counter, say, a new viral
anti-vaxx video in a concise and engaging way. Before VideoWiki, this would
have been pretty labor-intensive to create. With VideoWiki, it seems like
we're close to being able to develop this kind of content in a much more
timely manner.

But to be effective, the video needs to reach the intended audience. The
best way to do that is to post it to YouTube, where that audience is. Hence
my opening question.

What do people think?

Jonathan

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 5:47 PM James Heilman  wrote:

> Yes definitely possible for other languages. It currently works in Hindi,
> Spanish, French, and English.
>
> Here is an example of one in Hindi
>
> https://videowiki.wmflabs.org/hi/videowiki/%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%A1%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE:%E0%A4%B5%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%A1%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%AF%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%BF/%E0%A4%86%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%AF_%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%82%E0%A4%A7%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B6%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%A5?wikiSource=https://hi.wikipedia.org
>
> James
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 8:47 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Is it possible to add other languages if we have a free TTS system?
> > 
> > From: Wikimedia-l  on behalf of
> > Samuel Klein 
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 4:10 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Video Wiki
> >
> > Brilliant.  Long in the making, much needed.
> >
> > And for branding, the website devoted to this should be called Wikipedia
> > Media...
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 12:55 AM James Heilman  wrote:
> >
> > > Hey All
> > >
> > > We have a new project called Video Wiki
> > >  which
> > > allows:
> > >
> > >1. The easy creation of videos from scripts from Wikipedia and
> images
> > /
> > >short video segments from Commons
> > >2. Scripts can have inline references and the text of the script
> with
> > >references end up in the captions of the video with references.
> These
> > >captions can be turned on and off
> > >3. At the end of the video it automatically adds
> > >   1.  the license for the text (CC BY SA license)
> > >   2. attribution of those who have edited the scripts
> > >   3. all the metadata for the references supporting the scripts
> > >4. The final video version on Commons lists the files that the video
> > is
> > >derived from
> > >5. Attribution for the images is automatically added at the bottom
> of
> > >each image
> > >
> > >
> > > Have started a discussion here on Wikipedia and would appreciate
> peoples
> > > thoughts. Will be drafting a formal RfC about the use of such videos
> > > eventually.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Video_Wiki
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > James Heilman
> > > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > > 
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529
> 4266
> > ___
> > 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:
> > 

[Wikimedia-l] FR, EN, and IT editors: Please participate in a labeling campaign about verifiability of unsourced statements!

2018-08-22 Thread Jonathan Morgan
Hello everyone,


If you are an editor of the French, Italian or English Wikipedia, and you
are interested in contributing to technologies for improving verifiability
of Wikipedia articles, please read on—we need your help!

In the context of the Knowledge integrity
 program, we (the
WMF Research
team ) are studying ways to flag unsourced
statements needing a citation

using machine learning, with the aim of identifying areas where adding high
quality citations is particularly urgent or important. Following the
success of the first labeling campaign
,
we now need to collect additional, high-quality labeled data regarding
why sentences
need citations.

You are invited to participate in a second annotation task
.
We used your input from the last experiment to generate a taxonomy of
reasons

why editors add citations. With this taxonomy now embedded in the
interface, the annotation experience will be much faster and fun.

If you are interested in participating, please go to
http://labels.wmflabs.org/ui/enwiki/ (replace enwiki with itwki or frwiki
if you speak Italian or French), login, scroll down, and request one (or
more) workset  from the campaign *'**Labeling Unsourced Statements II’*.
For each task in a workset, the tool will show you an unsourced sentence in
an article and ask you to annotate it. You can then label the sentence as
needing an inline citation or not, and specify a reason for your choice
from a drop-down menu.  If you can't respond please select 'skip'. You can
also sign up by (optionally) adding your name on this page

to receive updates about future campaigns and results from this research

If you have any question/comment on this project, please let us know by
contacting mir...@wikimedia.org or leaving a message on the talk page of
the project
.


Thank you for your time!

Miriam, Jonathan, and Dario


-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) 
___
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 messages at arwiki

2017-12-31 Thread Jonathan Morgan
What Quiddity said.

If we're talking about impact on (good faith) new editors, yes, it's
complicated but the bulk of the evidence points to certain kinds of
welcomes[1][2] being effective at driving retention (every little bit
helps), and others having no effect at all, and maybe a few approaches
actively turning some people off. Has something to do with the form of the
welcome (giant walls of links are probably not very helpful, and may be
intimidating), the purpose of the welcome (is this a general "hey there" or
an invitation to read or participate in something that might be useful
and/or engaging to the intended recipient?) and the timing of the welcome
(new editors give up quickly; often the welcome or offer of support comes
too late).

If we're talking about the impact on experienced editors who have never
edited on that particular wiki... I've received these kinds of messages on
wikis I haven't edited, but viewed while logged in. I don't see the problem
here from a spam standpoint. Calling this harm may be a stretch?

However, I agree with Jonathan's argument that this may constitute a
privacy violation—but if the welcome bot is pulling from a public log to
send these welcomes (as it must be), then the potential privacy violation
occurs regardless of whether a welcome is sent, and the fix, if deemed
necessary, needs to happen upstream.

Regardless, has anyone asked Meno25 if they are willing and able to update
the bot to distinguish between locally vs SUL-created accounts? Or offered
to help do so? They have been willing to make changes

in the past. It sounds like that would fix the issue that prompted this
thread.

- Jonathan

1.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Teahouse_long_term_new_editor_retention
2. Boreum Choi, Kira Alexander, Robert E. Kraut, and John M. Levine. 2010.
Socialization tactics in wikipedia and their effects. In *Proceedings of
the 2010 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work* (CSCW '10).
ACM, New York, NY, USA, 107-116. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1145/1718918.1718940

On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 2:53 PM, quiddity  wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 8:08 AM, John Erling Blad 
> wrote:
> > As I recall, communication with newcomers by templates was found to be a
> > negative factor.
> >
>
> The results from past research are Not easy to summarize, and
> definitely not that simple, because of all the varying factors in both
> the templates and the research projects.
> E.g. message-length/-linkcount/-tone/-formatting (all of which slowly
> change over the years), the reason/timing for receiving a welcome
> (account-creation, first-edit, random edit, time-after-event), whether
> anything else was communicated around the same time (e.g. additional
> warning templates) on the same page or elsewhere, whether the welcome
> was personalized at all, what username it was signed with (a human
> name in my language, a funny avatar name, a generic bot-name, etc),
> etc -- all of which can be different (subtly or significantly) at
> every project and every instance).
> Some relevant links include:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:New_editor_
> welcome_wishlist#Results_and_discussion
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template_A/B_testing/
> Results#Welcome_messages
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Rhetoric_of_the_welcome_message
> but there are many more formal and informal attempts to understand and
> improve it all (from Enwiki's Teahouse initiatives, to all the
> scattered multilingual template_talk and wikiproject discussions (from
> Q6137590, to all the topic-specific wikiprojects)).
>
> TL;DR: Onboarding is complicated.
> Many people are helped by welcome messages.
> Many welcome messages are (or were) imperfect (too
> long/dense/formal/informal/irrelevant/technical/etc).
> I do not know if there is any specific research that focuses purely on
> the timing (whether it is best to send at account-creation, after
> first-edit, after human-review of an edit, whilst the user is
> logged-in or offline, etc), but I agree it might be useful.
>
> Here are some of the other research projects that look at welcome
> templates as one of the factors, but not the primary focus,
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:New_user_help_
> requests/Full_report
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Ignored_period_and_retention
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Framing_Support_for_Newcomers
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Alternative_
> lifecycles_of_new_users
>
> Lastly, regarding the specific instance of Arwiki
> - it's better than nothing, because some people will Not edit until
> given some encouragement, and some people like to read the rules
> before they start something.
> - It would be good if the bot could distinguish between
> accounts-made-locally (i.e. likely to be able to read Arabic) vs
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Design] 'Design team' in Wikimedia contexts

2015-11-10 Thread Jonathan Morgan
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Isarra Yos  wrote:

> On 10/11/15 22:25, Isarra Yos wrote:
>
> Hi, thank you for your response. This does clarify a lot.
>
> Why do you make the distinction that UX designers also do visual when you
> stated already that you also have specifically visual designers? Are the
> visual designers the ones doing the UI standardisation?
>
> How does Design Research relate to the rest of this? You state that they
> are not designers, but their work is an integral part of the user
> experience design process.
>
>
Hi Isarra,

Yeah, the current organizational structure is confusing that way.  However,
Design Research works pretty closely with designers (although we don't
currently work on every product... that's  partially a capacity issue, and
it needs to change).

To take one example: I've been working with Pau Giner on a series of user
studies to evaluate the design of a new Notifications prototype:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Global_notifications_user_research

And FWIW, 'UX [designer, engineer]' is a title that I've never been able to
parse either ;)

J





>
> Also, in the future, could you please use a darker colour (or even just
> leave it as the default) for your emails? That grey is really hard to read
> and I misread a few things the first time that made it look a little...
> different from what you obviously meant.
>
> Thanks!
>
> On 10/11/15 22:04, Sherah Smith wrote:
>
> Hi Isarra,
>
> >> what is the 'design team'?
>
> Even though the design team (as it used to be) is now split out under
> different managers with no centralized Director, we still consider
> ourselves a "team" in that we still work together across teams to maintain
> consistency and provide feedback, collaborate, and review one another's
> work where needed. We have a weekly meeting and regularly talk and
> brainstorm in person across teams to support one another in our work.
>
> Design Research is the team that conducts research that informs the design
> of products we build on all other teams. The employees on this team are not
> designers.
>
> Reading Design is a sub-team under Reading, and it designs reading
> experiences, mostly for mobile platforms. Where you see "Visual Designer"
> as a title, that person works on visual designs. "UX Designer" works on
> combinations of visual and user experience design, mostly the latter, and
> "UX Engineer" builds interactive prototypes and interaction design.
>
> The reorganization that you reference happened in late April this year and
> was not a decision the design team itself made. Rather, it came from upper
> management. We do now work within the teams you see listed on the staff
> page, on experiences for those teams specifically. So for example, you will
> not see a designer on the Search & Discovery team working on experiences
> for the Editing team.
>
> Is there a particular concern you have about this organization that you
> feel like we should be discussing, or does this answer your questions?
>
> Thank you,
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Isarra Yos  wrote:
>
>> From time to time I see references to the 'design team' on lists and on
>> phabricator. But what does this really mean now? As I understood it, the
>> previous monolithic Design Team was essentially disbanded toward the
>> beginning of the year, with the designers themselves distributed amongst
>> the other WMF teams in order to more directly integrate their services into
>> the development workflow (which sounds like a pretty good idea to me, at
>> least, since design is such an integral part of most development). Did this
>> happen? According to
>> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Staff_and_contractors, there seem
>> to still be two teams now with the word 'design' in their names, Reading
>> Design and Design Research, though these both seem to have somewhat more
>> specialised functions than just general design, namely Reading (sounds like
>> front-end non-interactive mw stuff, the visuals perhaps?) and Research.
>>
>> So what is the 'design team'? Is it one of these, though the teams only
>> have 5 and 4 people on them, respectively? Is it just WMF designers in
>> general?
>>
>> As much as this is also just a plea to please be more specific, if you
>> have an actual answer, or if you have been saying this, please, speak up,
>> share your experience and where you're coming from. As confusing as it is,
>> I suspect a discussion of what and why this has been going on could also
>> clear up quite a bit.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> -I
>>
>> ___
>> Design mailing list
>> des...@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *Sherah Smith*
> UX Engineer
> Wikimedia Foundation
> 206-660-6585
> sherahsmith.com
> donate.wikipedia.org
>
>
> ___
> Design mailing 
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] GRAPH extension is now live everywhere!

2015-05-06 Thread Jonathan Morgan
This is wicked exciting. Thanks to everyone involved!

- J

On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Yuri Astrakhan yastrak...@wikimedia.org
wrote:

 Starting today, editors can use *graph* tag to include complex graphs and
 maps inside articles.

 *Demo:* https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Graph/Demo
 *Vega's demo:* http://trifacta.github.io/vega/editor/?spec=scatter_matrix
 *Extension info:* https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Graph
 *Vega's docs:* https://github.com/trifacta/vega/wiki
 *Bug reports:* https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/ - project tag #graph

 Graph tag support template parameter expansion. There is also a Graphoid
 service to convert graphs into images. Currently, Graphoid is used in case
 the browser does not support modern JavaScript, but I plan to use it for
 all anonymous users - downloading large JS code needed to render graphs is
 significantly slower than showing an image.

 Potential future growth (developers needed!):
 * Documentation and better tutorials
 * Visualize as you type - show changes in graph while editing its code
 * Visual Editor's plugin
 * Animation https://github.com/trifacta/vega/wiki/Interaction-Scenarios

 Project history: Exactly one year ago, Dan Andreescu (milimetric) and Jon
 Robson demoed Vega visualization grammar https://trifacta.github.io/vega/
 
 usage in MediaWiki. The project stayed dormant for almost half a year,
 until Zero team decided it was a good solution to do on-wiki graphs. The
 project was rewritten, and gained many new features, such as template
 parameters. Yet, doing graphs just for Zero portal seemed silly. Wider
 audience meant that we now had to support older browsers, thus Graphoid
 service was born.

 This project could not have happened without the help from Dan Andreescu,
 Brion Vibber, Timo Tijhof, Chris Steipp, Max Semenik,  Marko Obrovac,
 Alexandros Kosiaris, Jon Robson, Gabriel Wicke, and others who have helped
 me develop,  test, instrument, and deploy Graph extension and Graphoid
 service. I also would like to thank the Vega team for making this amazing
 library.

 --Yurik
 ___
 Wikitech-l mailing list
 wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l




-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Community Research Lead
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)
jmor...@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, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Upcoming: WMF metrics/activities meeting - November 1

2012-10-19 Thread Jonathan Morgan
Hi all,

First-time poster here. Someone just pinged me about James's suggestion,
below.

Adding more contextual parameters to the Teahouse invitee report (as a
means of including more new editors in the sample, not shrinking the
current list) is a great idea. And detecting ref tag additions is a natural
starting place. I'll look into setting this up, and try to get a sense of
how many more editors it would get us.

James, it might interest you to know that the 10 edit threshold is
*also *informed
by research Aaron conducted (that man gets around):
http://www.katie.panciera.net/publications/PancieraGROUP2009.pdf

Cheers,
Jonathan


-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Research Strategist
Wikimedia Foundation

--

Message: 9
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 22:40:19 -0600
From: James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Upcoming: WMF metrics/activities meeting -
November 1
Message-ID:
CAD4=uZYSVu8PiQVdO7ok+n92Yga6Egm8zOvnm+bj=ocnlzl...@mail.gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

 * Review of key metrics including the monthly report card, but also
 specialized reports and analytics

Erik, are any new metrics being added to support the Halfaker
recommendations to build tools that aid in identifying and supporting
desirable newcomers from
http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline
?

In particular, are you willing to measure the number of users who have
added a ref tag in article space but have empty talk pages? That
seems like the easiest query to start out with for now and refine
later -- maybe two such tag adds would be better, and there is
probably a much better way to measure talk page activity, i.e. exclude
warning templates, or even all template messages. It's fairly easy for
me to find such users non-exhaustively, but without SQL access it's
difficult to find them all or measure their numbers and trend over
time.

Or better yet, could you please add that query to the Teahouse
invitation worklist report? Their current criteria of 10 edits is a
lot less meaningful. An editor who has figured out the ref tag but
only made five edits is worth far more than one who's made 10
formatting changes.



--

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


End of Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 103, Issue 42


-- Forwarded message --
From: wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 9:45 PM
Subject: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 103, Issue 42
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org


Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest...


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: The new narrowed focus by WMF (MZMcBride)
   2. Re: The new narrowed focus by WMF (Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton)
   3. Re: The new narrowed focus by WMF (James Salsman)
   4. Upcoming: WMF metrics/activities meeting - November 1
  (Erik Moeller)
   5. Re: Upcoming: WMF metrics/activities meeting -November 1
  (Richard Symonds)
   6. Re: The new narrowed focus by WMF (Juergen Fenn)
   7. Re: Upcoming: WMF metrics/activities meeting -November 1
  (Samuel Klein)
   8. Re: Upcoming: WMF metrics/activities meeting  -   November 1
  (Abbas Mahmood)
   9. Re: Upcoming: WMF metrics/activities meeting -November 1
  (James Salsman)


--

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 18:07:40 -0400
From: MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com
To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The new narrowed focus by WMF
Message-ID: cca5f5ec.1dc7...@mzmcbride.com
Content-Type: text/plain;   charset=US-ASCII

MZMcBride wrote:
 Theo10011 wrote:
 Sue Gardner started working on this document on Meta a couple of weeks
ago
 - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sue_Gardner/Narrowing_focus

 Well, there's your problem. You're reading the talk page! You want the
 subject-space page, of course:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Sue_Gardner/Narrowing_focus.

Sorry, one more thing that I think deserves a follow-up e-mail: huge props
to Sue for drafting this on-wiki. I know that there were a number of
alternate private venues available (such as the office wiki) and it isn't
always easy to draft a document, particularly a document like this, in
public. In keeping with our