I second Aaron's two suggestions, with a slight change of wordings of the first: (1) change "impact" to "public engagement" (potentially new users) or "community engagement" (existing users)
han-teng liao 2014-07-02 21:15 GMT+07:00 Aaron Halfaker <[email protected]>: > Given that it seems we agree with Poitr's desire for research about > Wikipedia to lead to useful tools an insights that can be directly applied > to making Wikipedia and other wikis better, what might be a more effective > strategy for encouraging researchers to engage with us or at least release > their work in forms that we can more easily work with? > > Here's a couple of half-baked ideas: > > - *Wiki research impact task force* -- contacts authors to encourage > them to release code/datasets/etc. and praise them publicly when they do -- > could be part of the work of newsletter reviewers. There are many > researchers on this list who work directly with Wikimedians to make sure > that their research has direct impact and their awesomeness is worth our > appreciation and public recognition. > - *Yearly research award* -- for the most directly impactful research > projects/researchers similar to > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_France_Research_Award. > One of the focuses of the judging could be the direct impact that the work > has had. > > -Aaron > > > On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Heather Ford <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Apologies. You're right, Han-Teng. The reviewer looks to be Piotr >> Konieczny who I think is on this mailing list? >> >> Heather Ford >> Oxford Internet Institute <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk> Doctoral Programme >> EthnographyMatters <http://ethnographymatters.net> | Oxford Digital >> Ethnography Group <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=115> >> http://hblog.org | @hfordsa <http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa> >> >> >> >> >> On 2 July 2014 12:58, h <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Heather, I am not sure who contribute that. Probably not Nemo. If this >>> issue of newsletter is correctly attributed, the contributors include: Taha >>> Yasseri, Maximilian Klein, Piotr Konieczny, Kim Osman, and Tilman Bayer. My >>> suggestion is only a personal one, and I am not sure if it is against >>> policies to make a few edits once the newsletter is out. >>> >>> Thanks again to the contributors of the newsletter, my life is a bit >>> easier and more interesting because of your work. >>> >>> >>> >>> 2014-07-02 15:35 GMT+07:00 Heather Ford <[email protected]>: >>> >>> +1 Thanks for your really thoughtful comments, Joe, Han-Teng. >>>> >>>> Nemo, would you be willing to add a note to the review and/or >>>> contacting the researcher? >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Heather. >>>> >>>> Heather Ford >>>> Oxford Internet Institute <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk> Doctoral Programme >>>> EthnographyMatters <http://ethnographymatters.net> | Oxford Digital >>>> Ethnography Group <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=115> >>>> http://hblog.org | @hfordsa <http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2 July 2014 05:17, h <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The tone of the sentence in question >>>>> >>>>> 'it is disappointing that the main purpose appears to be >>>>> completing a thesis, with little thought to actually improving >>>>> Wikipedia' >>>>> >>>>> could have been written as >>>>> >>>>> 'It would be more useful for the Wikipedia community of practice >>>>> if the author discussed or even spelled out the implications of the >>>>> research for improving Wikipedia". >>>>> >>>>> This suggestion is based on my own impression that [Wiki-research-l] >>>>> has mainly two groups of readers: community of practice and community of >>>>> knowledge. It is okay to have some group tensions for creative/critical >>>>> inputs. Still, a neutral tone is better for assessment, and an encouraging >>>>> tone might work a bit better to encourage others to fill the *gaps* (both >>>>> practice and knowledge ones). >>>>> >>>>> Also, the factors such as originally intended audience and word >>>>> limits may determine how much a writer can do for *due weight* (similar to >>>>> [[WP:due]]). If the original (academic) author failed to address the >>>>> implications for practices satisfactory, a research newsletter contributor >>>>> can point out what s/he thinks the potential/actual implications are. (My >>>>> thanks to the research newsletter's voluntary contributors for their >>>>> unpaid work!) >>>>> >>>>> While I understand that the monthly research newsletter has its >>>>> own perspective and interests different from academic newsletters, it does >>>>> not sacrifice the integrity of the newsletter to be gentle and specific. I >>>>> would recommend a minor edit to the sentence as the the newsletter could >>>>> be >>>>> read by any one in the world, not just the Wikipedians. It is >>>>> public/published for all readers, and thus please do not assume the >>>>> readers >>>>> know the context of Wikipedia research. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> han-teng liao >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2014-07-01 19:37 GMT+07:00 Heather Ford <[email protected]>: >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks so much for the newsletter [1]! Always a great read... >>>>>> >>>>>> But have to just say that comments like this: 'it is disappointing >>>>>> that the main purpose appears to be completing a thesis, with little >>>>>> thought to actually improving Wikipedia' [2] are really harsh and a >>>>>> little >>>>>> unfair. The student is studying Wikipedia - they can hardly only be >>>>>> interested in completing their thesis. We need to remember that >>>>>> researchers >>>>>> are at very different stages of their careers, they have very different >>>>>> motivations, and different levels of engagement with the Wikipedia >>>>>> community, but that *all* research on Wikipedia contributes to our >>>>>> understanding (even if as a catalyst for improvements). We want to >>>>>> encourage more research on Wikipedia, not attack the motivations of >>>>>> people >>>>>> we know little about - particularly when they're just students and >>>>>> particularly when this newsletter is on housed on Wikimedia Foundation's >>>>>> domain. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Heather. >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2014/June >>>>>> [2] >>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2014/June#.22Recommending_reference_materials_in_context_to_facilitate_editing_Wikipedia.22 >>>>>> >>>>>> Heather Ford >>>>>> Oxford Internet Institute <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/> Doctoral >>>>>> Programme >>>>>> EthnographyMatters <http://ethnographymatters.net/> | Oxford Digital >>>>>> Ethnography Group <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=115> >>>>>> >>>>>> http://hblog.org | @hfordsa <http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wiki-research-l mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wiki-research-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > >
_______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
