Stuart -- You make good points ('render unto academia what is academia's).
But I still think further personalization and even clearer attribution
would have gone a long way...'it is disappointing that the main purpose appears to be completing a thesis, with little thought to actually improving Wikipedia' ====> 'This reviewer [again linked] is disappointed that the main purpose appears to be completing a thesis, with little thought to actually improving Wikipedia' or even more strongly 'I (username)...' To me that's a vivid transformation. ----- Further--a thought about impact: If we want to make research more impactful, another place to look is the ease with which researchers can test (bad as well as good) ideas. The Wikipedia community has been over-researched: do we *really* want to encourage every MSc student on a 1-year thesis project to engage? Can we, as a research community, facilitate that, if so? -Jodi PS-As far as I can tell, this project is a really keen idea -- and perhaps the door is now open for *somebody* to translate the research? http://hci.cs.umanitoba.ca/projects-and-research/details/intelwiki On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Stuart A. Yeates <[email protected]> wrote: > I've been avoiding jumping into this thread, to let people closer to > the issue have the first say but it seems to me that there are a > couple of things that bear saying: > > * We're a cross-discipline group, academia and Wikipedia > > * While the portion of the review in question may not have been an > appropriate academic criticism, it was certainly an appropriate > Wikipedia criticism (and a criticism I agree with). > > * It's up to those who write it to collectively to decide what the > newsletter to be. Deference to the standards of academia will benefit > the careers of those in academia. Deference to the standards of > Wikipedia will increase the chances of some of this research actually > leading to better outcomes in live wiki. Maybe a better articulation > of this to reviewers and reviewed might help, as might two-part > reviews addressing the concerns of each audience separately. > > * I can't believe that there's a shortage of people to write reviews. > I can believe that there's a shortage of people motivated to write > reviews. Maybe we could look at a DYK-like quid pro quo system? Note > that this could be done independently from the editing of the > newsletter, all it would take is a quorum of (potential) editors to > set up a wiki page to coordinate and set standards. > > cheers > stuart > > _______________________________________________ > 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
