Thanks so much for the super helpful comments and suggestions, Leila, Kerry! I so appreciate it.
And yes, this is a great way to frame the distinction i.e. that some gaps can be filled by existing contributors (using automated techniques like recommendations) but others can only be filled by bringing in new contributors and/or by creating alternative support mechanisms or incentives (in the way that programmes like GLAM or editing competitions might do). Curious if anyone else on the list has recommendations for research in the latter category... I'm still convinced we need more academic research here :) Best, Heather. Dr Heather Ford Senior Lecturer, School of Arts & Media <https://sam.arts.unsw.edu.au/>, University of New South Wales w: hblog.org / EthnographyMatters.net <http://ethnographymatters.net/> / t: @hfordsa <http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa> On 9 February 2018 at 12:18, Leila Zia <le...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 8:56 PM, Kerry Raymond <kerry.raym...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I think we can't address content gaps unless we also address contributor > gaps. > > This is very important. We very likely have reader/consumer gaps, (for > sure) content gaps, and contributor gaps and these gaps are connected > to each other in ways that we need to much better understand. > > Leila > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > Wikifirstname.lastname@example.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wikiemail@example.com https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l