(broke Gerard's discussion into a separate thread. See https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/2014-October/003900.html )
Kerry's conceptualization of a legitimizing ideology is interesting. It doesn't seem like the ideology itself is a problem though. Quality control is important. However I think the criticism is still well met since ideologies -- even good ones -- have the potential to legitimize bad behavior. One strategy to make some change here would be to find a way to measure the amount of lost quality/productivity caused by aggressive application of rules and a lack of consideration for newcomers. Kerry put forward an idea for a research project exploring trends in editor interactions[1] that I think has the potential for insights in this area. I'm working with Pine to gather datasets that would make analysis of interactions easier to perform[2]. 1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Ideas/Editor_profiles_and_interactions 2. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Editor_Interaction_Data_Extraction_and_Visualization On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Gerard Meijssen <[email protected]> wrote: > Hoi, > I agree when it is the only thing I said. > > Yes, I asked you personally and Toby ... and Erik (both of them and > several times) and I always hear "good idea, should be easy, we ill look > into it and we get back to you". But as I said, your reply is relevant when > it is the only thing I said and it is not. > Thanks, > GerardM > > On 28 October 2014 13:43, Aaron Halfaker <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Gerard. Did you file the feature request? If not, you are ranting at >> the wrong mailing list. >> >> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 3:20 AM, Gerard Meijssen < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hoi, >>> Despair is a personal emotion. What makes you think that despair is an >>> attack on a person? It is not. Oliver, I despair about what the Research >>> list has become and, I will explain why. >>> >>> What I despair about is the overwhelming amount of Wikipedia related >>> noise. Noise because it feels to me like the same subjects are covered in >>> endless similar ways. I despair because when something new happens OUTSIDE >>> of this, the English Wikipedia it is completely ignored. >>> >>> Much of what I hear feels like noise because it lacks practical >>> relevance. Research, statistics could show "What are people looking for >>> most in Wikipedia but cannot find". We do not have that because of no >>> reason I can think of and, it has been promised often enough for years now. >>> The Swedish Wikipedia finds that their bot generated articles has >>> rejuvenated their Wikipedia but the research community is quiet about it.. >>> Ignores it ? Wikidata has statistics [1] its data has a real meaning about >>> Wikipedia, about Wikidata and about the sum of all information AVAILABLE to >>> us. >>> >>> The consequence of all this self promotion is that there is no attention >>> for anything else.. Yes, we know there is a gender disparity but what about >>> people with a mental health problem.. We have way more people editing who >>> are "enriched" with a diagnosis than is average. What do our projects mean >>> for them, does it help them with their self awareness, does it help them >>> recover, is our community aware of it and how does it cope or fail to cope. >>> What practical steps can we take to make these valuable contributors more >>> secure, less anxious? >>> >>> Researching the same things over and over does not help us understand >>> WIkipedia, our "other projects", our communities. It does not help us >>> achieve our aim; it is "share in the sum of all knowledge", we do not even >>> share all the knowledge that is available to us. Why not? How can we do >>> this? >>> >>> Jane knows the tool that provides a selection of Wikipedias with search >>> results from Wikidata. It works, Ori looked at it from a performance point >>> of view. NOTHING NEEDS TO BE DONE TO IMPLEMENT IT. It does not happen. A >>> research question would be "Why". >>> >>> The statistics for Wikidata are not up to date because the dumps are >>> faulty. It is not clear, obvious that it is of real concern to the people >>> responisble. However this data IS used to run specific bots based on what >>> the numbers show. The numbers matter, the statistics matter they have a >>> real demonstrable impact. >>> >>> What I am looking for is relevance and I find only research for more >>> fine grained explanations not for solutions. It is why I despair, it is >>> because it feels so much like a colossal waste of time when you consider >>> that researching subjects with a different objective would help us forward >>> so much. >>> >>> Maybe my expectations are unrealistic and people doing research are just >>> another incrowd doing their own thing. >>> Thanks, >>> GerardM >>> >>> >>> >>> [1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/stats.php?reverse >>> >>> On 28 October 2014 00:15, Oliver Keyes <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> If it's that trivial to implement, implement it. >>>> >>>> That's a very compressed way of saying; I think it's fine for us to >>>> disagree on this list. But, really? Pine's email made you "despair"? It, by >>>> inference, made you conclude he doesn't accept new things? You find the >>>> absence of a feature actively irrational? >>>> >>>> It's okay for Pine's vision to be different from yours, or mine, or >>>> Aaron's, or anyone else's. Wikimedia's ethos is not built on any one >>>> person's vision: it is built on the sum of all of our hopes (in an ideal >>>> universe). It's not a one-in, one-out system where ideas must be harshly >>>> and actively countered so that yours can take primacy. >>>> >>>> So let's try and stay non-hyperbolic and civil on this list, please. As >>>> a heuristic; if even /you/ feel a need to write an apology for your email >>>> into an email, don't hit send. >>>> >>>> On 27 October 2014 17:14, Gerard Meijssen <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hoi, >>>>> I read your mail again. It makes me despair. >>>>> >>>>> Wikimedia research is NOT about Wikipedia, not exclusively. When I >>>>> read what is an inspiration to you I find all the reasons why Wikipedians >>>>> do not accept anything new. Why we still do not have a search that also >>>>> returns information on what is NOT in that particular Wikipedia. It is >>>>> only >>>>> one example out of many. It is however so easy to implement, it defies >>>>> logic that it has not happened on all Wikipedias. It is just one example >>>>> that demonstrates that we do not even share the sum of all information >>>>> that >>>>> is available to us. >>>>> >>>>> ... >>>>> >>>>> Sorry, >>>>> GerardM >>>>> >>>>> On 20 October 2014 08:23, Pine W <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Both of the presentations at the October Wikimedia Research Showcase >>>>>> were fascinating and I encourage everyone to watch them [1]. I would like >>>>>> to continue to discuss the themes from the showcase about Wikipedia's >>>>>> adaptability, viability, and diversity. >>>>>> >>>>>> Aaron's discussion about Wikipedia's ongoing internal adaptations, >>>>>> and the slowing of those adaptations, reminded me of this statement from >>>>>> MIT Technology Review in 2013 (and I recommend reading the whole article >>>>>> [2]): >>>>>> >>>>>> "The main source of those problems (with Wikipedia) is not >>>>>> mysterious. The loose collective running the site today, estimated to be >>>>>> 90 >>>>>> percent male, operates a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive >>>>>> atmosphere that deters newcomers who might increase partipcipation in >>>>>> Wikipedia and broaden its coverage." >>>>>> >>>>>> I would like to contrast that vision of Wikipedia with the vision >>>>>> presented by User:CatherineMunro (formatting tweaks by me), which I >>>>>> re-read >>>>>> when I need encouragement: >>>>>> >>>>>> "THIS IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA >>>>>> One gateway >>>>>> to the wide garden of knowledge, >>>>>> where lies >>>>>> The deep rock of our past, >>>>>> in which we must delve >>>>>> The well of our future, >>>>>> The clear water >>>>>> we must leave untainted >>>>>> for those who come after us, >>>>>> The fertile earth, >>>>>> in which truth may grow >>>>>> in bright places, >>>>>> tended by many hands, >>>>>> And the broad fall of sunshine, >>>>>> warming our first steps >>>>>> toward knowing >>>>>> how much we do not know." >>>>>> >>>>>> How can we align ouselves less with the former vision and more with >>>>>> the latter? [3] >>>>>> >>>>>> I hope that we can continue to discuss these themes on the Research >>>>>> mailing list. Please contribute your thoughts and questions there. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Pine >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] youtube.com/watch?v=-We4GZbH3Iw >>>>>> >>>>>> [2] >>>>>> http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/ >>>>>> >>>>>> [3] Lest this at first seem to be impossible, I will borrow and tweak >>>>>> a quote from from George Bernard Shaw and later used by John F. Kennedy: >>>>>> "Some people see things as they are and say, 'Why?' Let us dream things >>>>>> that never were and say, 'Why not?'" >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Oliver Keyes >>>> Research Analyst >>>> Wikimedia Foundation >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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
