Re: [Wikimedia-l] What is our impact and how do we measure it?

2017-02-23 Thread James Salsman 
Hi Chris,

Thank you for your reply:

>> This paper suggests that Wikipedia has become more influential
>> than a large proportion of the peer reviewed literature:
>>
>> http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~xshuai/papers/jcdl240-shuai.pdf
>
> I am not sure that is the correct conclusion from the paper you mention

I was referring to this passage: "It is apparent that papers, authors,
and keywords that are mentioned on Wikipedia are ranked higher in the
scholarly community than those are not mentioned." My studies of the
time series of rankings of papers cited on popular vital science and
medicine articles early in those articles' development suggests to me
that the causation of that association is heavily bidirectional.

But, if the fact that both doctors and patients are obtaining most of
their medical information from Wikipedia doesn't support the same
conclusion, please let me know why you don't think so.

>> my assertion that systemic bias in the English
>> Wikipedia's economics articles has deleterious real-world implications...
>>
>> Do you think this topic is something that the Foundation should study?
>>
>
> I wouldn't place it high up the list of things WMF ought to be worried
> about.

Can you think of any other subject matter areas where systemic bias
might have more serious real-world implications?

> I remember hearing something vaguely about studies looking at
> "left-right" bias among academic economists and in media coverage
> of economics.

Would you please send citations to those that you know of? I tried to
review them all today, and all that I could find were mostly about
social political issues or geopolitics instead of economics.

Best regards,
Jim

___
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] What is our impact and how do we measure it?

2017-02-23 Thread Chris Keating 
Hi James,

This paper suggests that Wikipedia has become more influential than a large
> proportion of the peer reviewed literature:
>
> http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~xshuai/papers/jcdl240-shuai.pdf


I am not sure that is the correct conclusion from the paper you mention.
To quote the conclusion:

"We find that ... the Wikipedia community favors reputable authors and
trending topics. Second... Wikipedia does serve as a collaborative social
filtering system which is able to favor “classical” papers, authors, and
topics, and recommend them to the general public."

Unless I have missed something (and please let me know if I have) it
doesn't compare Wikipedia's influence with that of journal publishing,
merely observes that the same authors and topics are mentioned on Wikipedia
as are heavily mentioned in journals (and thus that the two are reflective
of the same corpus of knowledge)


> my assertion that systemic bias in the English
> Wikipedia's economics articles has deleterious real-world implications...
>
> Do you think this topic is something that the Foundation should study?
>

I wouldn't place it high up the list of things WMF ought to be worried
about. I remember hearing something vaguely about studies looking at
"left-right" bias among academic economists and in media coverage of
economics. In principle the same techniques could be applied to Wikipedia
articles and that might yield some insights into what could be done better.

Equally, economics isn't a very well covered area and has never attracted
that many editors, so the problems probably woudln't be fixed without a
couple of dozen more strong economics editors able to write about things in
a neutral way.

Regards,

Chris
___
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] What is our impact and how do we measure it?

2017-02-23 Thread James Salsman 
Gerard,

Are there any other areas where systemic bias on the wikipedias might
reasonably expected to cause serious damage to society? If we are
missing articles on notable women, or rural landmarks, or we have
Japanese islands with Korean names or vice-versa, that is bad, but is
it likely to cause as many actual, real-world problems as, for
example, repeated implications that lowering taxes on the rich will
improve conditions for most people?

The Foundation and volunteers frequently address issues where
individual companies are the subject of organized advocacy. Why
shouldn't socioeconomic class be subject to the same scrutiny?

Researchers have studied the topic, but not in a systematic way. The
few systematic studies of political bias on Wikipedia have either
focused mostly on social issues or geocentric bias, with economics
playing a very small part. It would be great if the Foundation would
fund such more specific studies by independent researchers with a
history of studying bias in economics sources. Mark Blyth and David
Stuckler at Oxford and Sanjay Basu, an M.D. at Stanford, have all done
very good work in this area.


On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Gerard Meijssen
 wrote:
> Hoi,
> There are many area's where Wikipedia is biased. Obviously we take the
> gender gap seriously but there is also a bias towards the Western world. It
> is very much in the very basics of our community. Why should we study the
> bias in a field like economics? When we were to study it what kind of
> impact should we study? Remember there is this "neutral point of view" and
> remember Wikipedia is not about "original research" and that is what you
> are calling for.
>
> So consider what is it that makes any subject of relevance so that our
> board has to study this, why could we not leave it to the researchers ...
> or should we not first study the existing bias in our research ?
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
>
> Op do 23 feb. 2017 om 18:24 schreef James Salsman 
>
>> Another fact to consider is that both doctors and patients have been
>> obtaining most of their medical information from Wikipedia for years:
>>
>> https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/03/doctors-1-source-for-
>> healthcare-information-wikipedia/284206/
>>
>> Christophe, does the Board agree that the Foundation should study bias
>> in the wikipedias' economics articles and its impact on society?
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 8:01 AM, James Salsman  wrote:
>> > Chris,
>> >
>> > This paper suggests that Wikipedia has become more influential than a
>> large
>> > proportion of the peer reviewed literature:
>> >
>> > http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~xshuai/papers/jcdl240-shuai.pdf
>> >
>> > On a related note, I tried to reply off-list to the Foundation official
>> who
>> > recently claimed that my assertion that systemic bias in the English
>> > Wikipedia's economics articles has deleterious real-world implications
>> was,
>> > "framed with a leading question," and "filled with a good deal of
>> > speculation," by asking what she thought of the evidence I presented on
>> how
>> > the "Fair Tax" article and the other Mises-influenced walled garden
>> articles
>> > had been successfully gamed into appearing first in the automatically
>> > generated set of "related articles" on articles with an opposite economic
>> > perspective, such as "Making Work Pay tax credit," but there was no
>> reply.
>> >
>> > Do you think this topic is something that the Foundation should study?
>> I've
>> > asked the Chair of the Board of Trustees to do so, but there hasn't been
>> a
>> > reply to that either.
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> > Jim
>> >
>> > On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 2:57 PM Chris Keating <
>> chriskeatingw...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi all,
>> >>
>> >> For a while now I've been thinking about different ways to define and
>> >> measure the Wikimedia movement's impact. This started for me with
>> various
>> >> conversations about different iterations of the WMF's Global Metrics and
>> >> different rounds of FDC bids, but it turns out to be wider than that.
>> >>
>> >> This is a big and thorny topic and one where we seem to have come up
>> with
>> >> a
>> >> lot of implicit answers without spending much time thinking about in any
>> >> detail, so I've written up my thoughts as a meta-essay here:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:The_Land/Thinking_
>> about_the_impact_of_the_Wikimedia_movement
>> >>
>> >> I'd be really interested to hear other peoples' views!
>> >>
>> >> Chris
>> >>
>> >> (User:The Land)
>>
>> ___
>> 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] What is our impact and how do we measure it?

2017-02-23 Thread Gerard Meijssen 
Hoi,
There are many area's where Wikipedia is biased. Obviously we take the
gender gap seriously but there is also a bias towards the Western world. It
is very much in the very basics of our community. Why should we study the
bias in a field like economics? When we were to study it what kind of
impact should we study? Remember there is this "neutral point of view" and
remember Wikipedia is not about "original research" and that is what you
are calling for.

So consider what is it that makes any subject of relevance so that our
board has to study this, why could we not leave it to the researchers ...
or should we not first study the existing bias in our research ?
Thanks,
GerardM


Op do 23 feb. 2017 om 18:24 schreef James Salsman 

> Another fact to consider is that both doctors and patients have been
> obtaining most of their medical information from Wikipedia for years:
>
> https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/03/doctors-1-source-for-
> healthcare-information-wikipedia/284206/
>
> Christophe, does the Board agree that the Foundation should study bias
> in the wikipedias' economics articles and its impact on society?
>
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 8:01 AM, James Salsman  wrote:
> > Chris,
> >
> > This paper suggests that Wikipedia has become more influential than a
> large
> > proportion of the peer reviewed literature:
> >
> > http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~xshuai/papers/jcdl240-shuai.pdf
> >
> > On a related note, I tried to reply off-list to the Foundation official
> who
> > recently claimed that my assertion that systemic bias in the English
> > Wikipedia's economics articles has deleterious real-world implications
> was,
> > "framed with a leading question," and "filled with a good deal of
> > speculation," by asking what she thought of the evidence I presented on
> how
> > the "Fair Tax" article and the other Mises-influenced walled garden
> articles
> > had been successfully gamed into appearing first in the automatically
> > generated set of "related articles" on articles with an opposite economic
> > perspective, such as "Making Work Pay tax credit," but there was no
> reply.
> >
> > Do you think this topic is something that the Foundation should study?
> I've
> > asked the Chair of the Board of Trustees to do so, but there hasn't been
> a
> > reply to that either.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Jim
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 2:57 PM Chris Keating <
> chriskeatingw...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> For a while now I've been thinking about different ways to define and
> >> measure the Wikimedia movement's impact. This started for me with
> various
> >> conversations about different iterations of the WMF's Global Metrics and
> >> different rounds of FDC bids, but it turns out to be wider than that.
> >>
> >> This is a big and thorny topic and one where we seem to have come up
> with
> >> a
> >> lot of implicit answers without spending much time thinking about in any
> >> detail, so I've written up my thoughts as a meta-essay here:
> >>
> >>
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:The_Land/Thinking_
> about_the_impact_of_the_Wikimedia_movement
> >>
> >> I'd be really interested to hear other peoples' views!
> >>
> >> Chris
> >>
> >> (User:The Land)
>
> ___
> 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] What is our impact and how do we measure it?

2017-02-23 Thread James Salsman 
Another fact to consider is that both doctors and patients have been
obtaining most of their medical information from Wikipedia for years:

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/03/doctors-1-source-for-healthcare-information-wikipedia/284206/

Christophe, does the Board agree that the Foundation should study bias
in the wikipedias' economics articles and its impact on society?

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 8:01 AM, James Salsman  wrote:
> Chris,
>
> This paper suggests that Wikipedia has become more influential than a large
> proportion of the peer reviewed literature:
>
> http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~xshuai/papers/jcdl240-shuai.pdf
>
> On a related note, I tried to reply off-list to the Foundation official who
> recently claimed that my assertion that systemic bias in the English
> Wikipedia's economics articles has deleterious real-world implications was,
> "framed with a leading question," and "filled with a good deal of
> speculation," by asking what she thought of the evidence I presented on how
> the "Fair Tax" article and the other Mises-influenced walled garden articles
> had been successfully gamed into appearing first in the automatically
> generated set of "related articles" on articles with an opposite economic
> perspective, such as "Making Work Pay tax credit," but there was no reply.
>
> Do you think this topic is something that the Foundation should study? I've
> asked the Chair of the Board of Trustees to do so, but there hasn't been a
> reply to that either.
>
> Best regards,
> Jim
>
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 2:57 PM Chris Keating 
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> For a while now I've been thinking about different ways to define and
>> measure the Wikimedia movement's impact. This started for me with various
>> conversations about different iterations of the WMF's Global Metrics and
>> different rounds of FDC bids, but it turns out to be wider than that.
>>
>> This is a big and thorny topic and one where we seem to have come up with
>> a
>> lot of implicit answers without spending much time thinking about in any
>> detail, so I've written up my thoughts as a meta-essay here:
>>
>>
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:The_Land/Thinking_about_the_impact_of_the_Wikimedia_movement
>>
>> I'd be really interested to hear other peoples' views!
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> (User:The Land)

___
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] What is our impact and how do we measure it?

2017-02-23 Thread James Salsman 
Chris,

This paper suggests that Wikipedia has become more influential than a large
proportion of the peer reviewed literature:

http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~xshuai/papers/jcdl240-shuai.pdf

On a related note, I tried to reply off-list to the Foundation official who
recently claimed that my assertion that systemic bias in the English
Wikipedia's economics articles has deleterious real-world implications was,
"framed with a leading question," and "filled with a good deal of
speculation," by asking what she thought of the evidence I presented on how
the "Fair Tax" article and the other Mises-influenced walled garden
articles had been successfully gamed into appearing first in the
automatically generated set of "related articles" on articles with an
opposite economic perspective, such as "Making Work Pay tax credit," but
there was no reply.

Do you think this topic is something that the Foundation should study? I've
asked the Chair of the Board of Trustees to do so, but there hasn't been a
reply to that either.

Best regards,
Jim

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 2:57 PM Chris Keating 
wrote:

Hi all,

For a while now I've been thinking about different ways to define and
measure the Wikimedia movement's impact. This started for me with various
conversations about different iterations of the WMF's Global Metrics and
different rounds of FDC bids, but it turns out to be wider than that.

This is a big and thorny topic and one where we seem to have come up with a
lot of implicit answers without spending much time thinking about in any
detail, so I've written up my thoughts as a meta-essay here:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:The_Land/Thinking_about_the_impact_of_the_Wikimedia_movement

I'd be really interested to hear other peoples' views!

Chris

(User:The Land)
___
___
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] What is our impact and how do we measure it?

2017-02-22 Thread Chris Keating 
Hi all,

For a while now I've been thinking about different ways to define and
measure the Wikimedia movement's impact. This started for me with various
conversations about different iterations of the WMF's Global Metrics and
different rounds of FDC bids, but it turns out to be wider than that.

This is a big and thorny topic and one where we seem to have come up with a
lot of implicit answers without spending much time thinking about in any
detail, so I've written up my thoughts as a meta-essay here:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:The_Land/Thinking_about_the_impact_of_the_Wikimedia_movement

I'd be really interested to hear other peoples' views!

Chris

(User:The Land)
___
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,