Hi Folks: I just wanted to interject at this point that I and others are working on organizing a conference to host the varied work of those teaching with Wikipedia in higher education. I hope to have more details to offer soon. Such a conference might be slightly different from the research discussed on this list, but I anticipate that all manner of presentations focusing on the intersection of higher education and Wikipedia will be present -- this would include presentations on pedagogy, but also content focusing on the epistemologies of Wikipedia and higher education systems.
More soon. Yours, Bob Cummings On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 10:45 AM, < [email protected]> wrote: > Send Wiki-research-l mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Wiki-research-l digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: discussion about wikipedia surveys (Aaron Halfaker) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 08:45:17 -0700 > From: Aaron Halfaker <[email protected]> > To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] discussion about wikipedia surveys > Message-ID: > <CAKP=3WyxNsz4C= > [email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Kerry said: > > > > Because of the criticism of “not giving back”, could we perhaps do things > > to try to make the researcher feel part of the community to make “giving > > back” more likely? For example, could we give them a slot every now and > > again to talk about their project in the R&D Showcase? Encourage them to > be > > on this mailing list. Are we at a point where it might make sense to > > organise a Wikipedia research conference to help build a research > > community? Just thinking aloud here … > > > This is a bit different than the main topic, so I wanted to break it out > into another reply. > > We just had Nate Matias[0] from the MIT media lab present on his work at > the last showcase[1]. We also just sent out a survey about the showcase > that includes a call for recommended speakers at future showcases[2]. As > for a Wikipedia research conference, see OpenSym[3] (formerly WikiSym) and > Wikimania[4] (not as researchy, but a great venue to maximize wiki research > impact). > > 0. http://natematias.com/ > 1. > > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Analytics/Research_and_Data/Showcase#July_2014 > 2. > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/2014-July/003574.html > 3. http://www.opensym.org/os2014/ > 4. https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page > > > On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Aaron Halfaker <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Aaron, when I read that it is active because I had heard from others in > > your team about a year or two ago that this wasn't going to be the > vehicle > > for obtaining permission going forward and that a new, more lightweight > > process was being designed. > > > > 1) If anyone told you that we are no longer active, they were wrong. > > 2) The "lightweight" process you refer to is what I linked to in enwiki > > in my previous response. See again: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Research_recruitment > > > > Generally, there seems to be a misconception that RCom == paid WMF > > activities. While RCom involves a relationship with the Wikimedia > > Foundation, our activities as part of RCom are 100% volunteer and open to > > participation from other Wikipedians (seriously, let me know if you want > to > > help out!), and as such, our backlog tends to suffer when our available > > volunteer time does. FWIW, I became involved in this work as a volunteer > > (before I started working with the WMF). With that in mind, it seems > like > > we are not discussing RCom itself which is mostly inactive -- so much as > we > > are discussing the subject recruitment review process which is still > > active. Let me state this clearly: *If you send an email to me or Dario > > about a research project that you would like reviewed, we will help you > > coordinate a review. *Our job as review coordinators is to make sure > > that the study is adequately documented and that Wikipedians and other > > researchers are pulled in to discuss the material. We don't just welcome > > broad involvement -- we need it! We all suffer from the lack of it. > > Please show up help us! > > > > To give you some context on the current stats and situation, I should > > probably give a bit of history. I've been working to improve subject > > recruitment review -- with the goal of improving interactions between > > researchers and Wikipedians -- for years. Let me first say that *I'm > > game to make this better**.* In my experience, the biggest issue to > > documenting the a review/endorsement/whatever process that I have come > > across is this: there seems to be a lot of people who feel that > minimizing *process > > description* provides power and adaptability to intended processes[1]. > > It's these people that I've regularly battled in my frequent efforts to > > increase the formalization around the subject recruitment proposal > vetting > > process (e.g. SRAG had a structured appeals process and stated > timelines). > > The result of these battles is the severely under-documented process > > "described" in meta:R:FAQ <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:FAQ > >. > > > > Here's some links to my previous work on subject recruitment process that > > will show these old discussions about process creep > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_instruction_creep>. > > > > - > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Subject_Recruitment_Approvals_Group > > - > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Subject_Recruitment_Approvals_Group > > - > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Research&oldid=354600173 > > - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Research/Archive_1 > > - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Research/Archive_2 > -- > > Note that this was actually an *enwiki policy* for about 5 hours > > before the RfC was overturned due to too few editors being > involved in the > > straw poll. > > > > For new work, see my current (but stalled for about 1.5 years) push for a > > structured process on English Wikipedia. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Research_recruitment See also > > the checklist I have been working on with Lane. > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Research_recruitment/Wikipedian_checklist > > > > When you review these docs and the corresponding conversations, please > > keep in mind that I was a new Wikipedian for the development of WP:SRAG > and > > WP:Research, so I made some really critical mistakes -- like taking > > hyperbolic criticism of the proposals personally. :\ > > > > So what now? Well, in the meantime, if you let me know about some > subject > > recruitment you want to do, I'll help you find someone to coordinate a > > review that fits within the process described in the RCom docs. In the > > short term, are any of you folks interested in going through some > > iterations of the new WP:Research_recruitment policy doc? > > > > -Aaron > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 2:38 AM, Heather Ford <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Agree with Kerry that we really need to have a more flexible process > that > >> speaks to the main problem that (I think) RCOM was started to solve i.e. > >> that Wikipedians were getting tired of being continually contacted by > >> researchers to fill out *surveys*. I'm not sure where feelings are about > >> that right now (I certainly haven't seen a huge amount of surveys > myself) > >> but I guess the big question right now is whether RCOM is actually > active > >> or not. I must say that I was surprised, Aaron, when I read that it is > >> active because I had heard from others in your team about a year or two > ago > >> that this wasn't going to be the vehicle for obtaining permission going > >> forward and that a new, more lightweight process was being designed. As > >> Nathan discusses on the Wikimedia-l list, there aren't many indications > >> that RCOM is still active. Perhaps there has been a recent decision to > >> resuscitate it? If that's the case, let us know about it :) And then we > can > >> discuss what needs to happen to build a good process. > >> > >> One immediate requirement that I've been talking to others about is > >> finding ways of making the case to the WMF as a group of researchers for > >> the anonymization of country level data, for example. I've spoken to a > few > >> researchers (and I myself made a request about a year ago that hasn't > been > >> responded to) and it seems like some work is required by the foundation > to > >> do this anonymisation but that there are a few of us who would be really > >> keen to use this data to produce research very valuable to Wikipedia - > >> especially from smaller language versions/developing countries. Having > an > >> official process that assesses how worthwhile this investment of time > would > >> be to the Foundation would be a great idea, I think, but right now there > >> seems to be a general focus on the research that the Foundation does > itself > >> rather than enabling researchers outside. I know how busy Aaron and > Dario > >> (and others in the team) are so perhaps this requires a new position to > >> coordinate between researchers and Foundation resources? > >> > >> Anyway, I think the big question right now is whether there are any > plans > >> for RCOM that have been made by the research team and the only people > who > >> can answer that are folks in the research team :) > >> > >> 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 17 July 2014 08:49, Kerry Raymond <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> Yes, I meant the community/communities of WMF. But the authority of > >>> the community derives from WMF, which chooses to delegate such > matters. I > >>> think that “advise” is a good word to use. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Kerry > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ------------------------------ > >>> > >>> *From:* Amir E. Aharoni [mailto:[email protected]] > >>> *Sent:* Thursday, 17 July 2014 5:37 PM > >>> *To:* [email protected]; Research into Wikimedia content and > >>> communities > >>> > >>> *Subject:* Re: [Wiki-research-l] discussion about wikipedia surveys > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > WMF does not "own" me as a contributor; it does not decide who can > >>> and cannot recruit me for whatever purposes. > >>> > >>> I don't think that it really should be about WMF. The WMF shouldn't > >>> enforce anything. The community can formulate good practices for > >>> researchers and _advise_ community members not to cooperate with > >>> researchers who don't follow these practices. Not much more is needed. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי > >>> http://aharoni.wordpress.com > >>> “We're living in pieces, > >>> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 2014-07-17 8:24 GMT+03:00 Kerry Raymond <[email protected]>: > >>> > >>> Just saying here what I already put on the Talk page: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> I am a little bothered by the opening sentence "This page documents the > >>> process that researchers must follow before asking Wikipedia > contributors > >>> to participate in research studies such as surveys, interviews and > >>> experiments." > >>> > >>> WMF does not "own" me as a contributor; it does not decide who can and > >>> cannot recruit me for whatever purposes. What WMF does own is its > >>> communication channels to me as a contributor and WMF has a right to > >>> control what occurs on those channels. Also I think WMF probably > should be > >>> concerned about both its readers and its contributors being recruited > >>> through its channels (as either might be being recruited). I think this > >>> distinction should be made, e.g. > >>> > >>> "This page documents the process that researchers must follow if they > >>> wish to use Wikipedia's (WMF's?) communication channels to recruit > people > >>> to participate in research studies such as surveys, interviews and > >>> experiments. Communication channels include its mailing lists, its > Project > >>> pages, Talk pages, and User Talk pages [and whatever else I've > forgotten]." > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> If researchers want to recruit WPians via non-WMF means, I don’t think > >>> it’s any business of WMF’s. An example might be a researcher who > wanted to > >>> contact WPians via chapters or thorgs; I would leave it for the > >>> chapter/thorg to decide if they wanted to assist the researcher via > their > >>> communication channels. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Of course, the practical reality of it is that some researchers > >>> (oblivious of WMF’s concerns in relation to recruitment of WPians to > >>> research projects) will simply use WMF’s channels without asking nicely > >>> first. Obviously we can remove such requests on-wiki and follow up any > >>> email requests with the commentary that this was not an approved > request. > >>> In my category of [whatever else I’ve forgotten], I guess there are > things > >>> like Facebook groups and any other social media presence. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Also to be practical, if WMF is to have a process to vet research > >>> surveys, I think it has to be sufficiently fast and not be overly > demanding > >>> to avoid the possibility of the researcher giving up (“too hard to deal > >>> with these people”) and simply spamming email, project pages, social > media > >>> in the hope of recruiting some participants regardless. That is, if we > make > >>> it too slow/hard to do the right thing, we effectively encourage doing > the > >>> wrong thing. Also, what value-add can we give them to reward those who > do > >>> the right thing? It’s nice to have a carrot as well as a stick when it > >>> comes to onerous processes J > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Because of the criticism of “not giving back”, could we perhaps do > >>> things to try to make the researcher feel part of the community to make > >>> “giving back” more likely? For example, could we give them a slot > every now > >>> and again to talk about their project in the R&D Showcase? Encourage > them > >>> to be on this mailing list. Are we at a point where it might make > sense to > >>> organise a Wikipedia research conference to help build a research > >>> community? Just thinking aloud here … > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Kerry > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ------------------------------ > >>> > >>> *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > >>> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Aaron > >>> Halfaker > >>> *Sent:* Thursday, 17 July 2014 6:59 AM > >>> *To:* Research into Wikimedia content and communities > >>> *Subject:* Re: [Wiki-research-l] discussion about wikipedia surveys > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> RCOM review is still alive and looking for new reviewers (really, > >>> coordinators). Researchers can be directed to me or Dario ( > >>> [email protected]) to be assigned a reviewer. There is also > a > >>> proposed policy on enwiki that could use some eyeballs: > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Research_recruitment > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) < > >>> [email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> phoebe ayers, 16/07/2014 19:21: > >>> > >>> > (Personally, I think the answer should be to resuscitate RCOM, but > >>> > that's easy to say and harder to do!) > >>> > >>> IMHO in the meanwhile the most useful thing folks can do is subscribing > >>> to the feed of new research pages: > >>> < > >>> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:NewPages&feed=atom&hidebots=1&hideredirs=1&limit=500&offset=&namespace=202 > >>> > > >>> It's easier to build a functioning RCOM out of an active community of > >>> "reviewers", than the other way round. > >>> > >>> Nemo > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> 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 > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/attachments/20140717/c9e37193/attachment.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > > > End of Wiki-research-l Digest, Vol 107, Issue 35 > ************************************************ > -- Dr. Robert E. Cummings Director, Center for Writing and Rhetoric Ole Miss Food Bank Faculty Advisor University of Mississippi PO Box 1848 University, MS 38677-1848 (662) 915-1989 [email protected] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BobCummings Communicate OER: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Communicate_OER <http://www.digitalculture.org/books/wiki-writing>
_______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
