On 28 December 2015 at 10:03, Joe Corneli <holtzerman...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 28 2015, Oliver Keyes wrote: > >> My big question is how these pedagogic maps factor in the negatives of >> peer production communities - harassment, toxicity - and route around >> or solve for them. > > Hi Oliver, > > Thanks for the speedy and thought-provoking reply! > > The question above is a good one. We did have a basic collection of > "antipatterns", but didn't develop them in this paper, because thinking > about antipatterns adds some complexity and we wanted to get the > "positive" vision more firmly in mind first. With that accomplished, > I'd love to write a sequel sometime about "Antipatterns of Peeragogy"! >
Cool! This makes sense and is one of the concerns I've heard about including antipatterns and patterns together; that it leads to claims of a work "lacking focus". I would argue (just for myself, and editorial boards probably feel very very differently) that not including antipatterns makes a design pattern or template of limited applicability and so said editorial boards should be approving of it - but that's, again, just for me ;p. > Still, the current catalog should definitely help surface and do > something about concerns. The strategy would be something like: start > with the Scrapbook pattern and existing critiques, develop a short list > of criticisms into A specific project, and build a Roadmap that involves > others in addressing the issue that was identified. > > A recent thread kicked off by Pine seems to be an example along those > lines: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/2015-December/004927.html > >> I do wonder about the generalisability of some of the examples; in >> particular while Wikiprojects are _ideally_ a good starting point for >> a lot of newcomers I don't have the data to hand about whether, in >> practice, it is the starting point for a large proportion of users, >> and I don't see citations to that effect in your paper (although I do >> see the claim). It would be good if someone more informed about this >> particular question than I could chip in with what they've >> measured/observed in detail (I know some people have been studying >> Wikiprojects specifically, particularly James Hare) > > I've been impressed with some of my own earlier common-sensical > guesswork that turned out not to hold water, and accordingly have tried > to be careful to cite or footnote the Wikimedia evidence, but indeed > that is one of the intuitive claims that is ^[citation needed]. Even > though there are "many" users involved with Wikiprojects, the population > might be oldtimers rather than new users. I'll look around a bit more, > and/or adjust the claim to focus on current population of Wikiproject > contributors rather than on the hypothesis that the projects are used > for wiki onramping. > Yeah; from my own subjective experiences it's more oldtimers than newtimers, but this may also be common-sensical-but-not-holiding-water! > Joe > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l -- Oliver Keyes Count Logula Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
