Wonderful suggestions, Joe! > > It's not just "failed Wikipedias" but "successful > non-Wikipedias" that need to be highlighted and compared to Wikipedia > itself.
As someone who is doing their DPhil on deleted pages and banned users on Wikipedia, I think this is a glorious idea :) I am going to try and construct a good paragraph about critical research being welcomed and talk more with our CPOV group about this based on your suggestions and comments below. > > In short, the purpose would be to engage in scholarly, "inciteful", > Wikipedia-bashing. What is irreparably flawed in the design? (More > politely: if we were to do it all over again, what would we do > differently?) Why is it so unappealing to potential women editors > (per above)? What are the other outstanding failures of Wikipedia? > > Along with this initiative, I suggest inviting Domas Mituzas > (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fuzheado/228629484/) to give a keynote. Ok! Will send onto the organizing committee. Any particular things I should add with the note about why he would be suited? Best, Heather. > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l Heather Ford Oxford Internet Institute Doctoral Programme www.ethnographymatters.net @hfordsa on Twitter http://hblog.org
_______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
