Thank you, SJ. I fully agree with your recommendations.
El jue, 13 ene 2022 a las 14:55, Samuel Klein (<[email protected]>)
escribió:
> Kay, bless your heart.
> Galder, Gereon, Xavi: I would be *particularly* interested in research in
> other languages, since it's harder for me to run across that in my regular
> feeds. (that may also be true for some of the reviewers :) but they're also
> lang and time limited)
>
> Recommendation that might conceivably be implemented for this cycle:
> -- Update "can submit" to "encouraged to submit" in any languages
> -- If in a language other than {core langs} <-- which may be only English
> this year, ask submitters to recommend a reviewer who can share a review of
> the work in English
> -- To Andy's point, confirm the license of the research is one that is
> open (so that it can be independently translated)
> -- Have a two stage award: the first stage, based on a quick review for
> significance and interest, identifies finalists which are, if not already
> in one of the {core langs}, translated into one of them. (at least in
> abstract + summary; we facilitate this translation by supporting /
> sponsoring community translation; it's a universal benefit for researchers
> around the world)
> -- Second stage is as currently imagined: review of finalist papers in
> {core langs}.
>
> <3. SJ
>
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 10:27 PM KAY WOODING via Wikidata <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I SPEAK ENGLISH THABKS I APPRECIATE IT JESUS LOVES YIU I LOVE YOU GOD
>> BLESS YOU HAVE A BLESSED DAY
>>
>> On Wednesday, January 12, 2022, 09:55:21 PM EST, Leila Zia <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> We gave the option of accepting nominations in more languages some
>> more thought. I want to be very honest: I don't have a good solution
>> to accommodate more languages in this cycle. We considered the option
>> of allowing/encouraging nominations in other languages, and not doing
>> the broader search we do in English in those languages. However, even
>> this option is not really guaranteed to work because we consider
>> "scholarly publications" which can be papers of a few pages or books
>> that can be hundreds of pages. We cannot guarantee that we can
>> translate the scholarly publication (independent of its length)
>> in-time for the review.
>>
>> Given the above, my suggestion to you is that if you know of a
>> scholarly publication that is in another language than English and you
>> think we should consider it, still nominate it. We will consider it,
>> even if I can't guarantee that we review it.
>>
>> I'm sorry that I am not able to offer a better solution for this
>> cycle. We will continue thinking about this point for the future
>> cycles.
>>
>> Best,
>> Leila
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 12:46 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Leila,
>> > I have read it, that's why I'm confused.
>> > ________________________________
>> > From: Leila Zia <[email protected]>
>> > Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 9:40 PM
>> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[email protected]>
>> > Cc: [email protected] <
>> [email protected]>; Discussion list for the Wikidata
>> project. <[email protected]>
>> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: [Wiki-research-l] Re: The Wikimedia
>> Foundation Research Award of the Year - Call for Nominations
>> >
>> > Hi Galder,
>> >
>> > Please see below.
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 12:26 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
>> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Thanks, Leila, for answering the question raised.
>> >
>> > Anytime.
>> >
>> > > I'm a bit confused with this, I supposed that the Wikimedia
>> Foundation Research Award was an initiative from the Research team of the
>> WMF (https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research), but I read in
>> your answer that "WikiResearch is primarily in English and about research
>> published in English". I understand that the main working language of the
>> WMF is English, as this mailing list is, but I would assume that an Award
>> promoted by the WMF should be multilingual.
>> >
>> > Sorry. Let me clarify. What I was referring to when I used
>> > WikiResearch in my email was the WikiResearch twitter account:
>> > https://twitter.com/WikiResearch . I did not intend to refer to the
>> > WMF Research team or Wikimedia Research community. And to repeat: this
>> > is one source we use to find research done on the Wikimedia projects.
>> > There are other sources as I mentioned in my response.
>> >
>> > > Me, as a Basque Wikimedians User Group member, I promote Wikimedia
>> activities in Basque language, because that is our goal. But the WMF is not
>> the English Wikimedians User Group, as far as I understand. Our designated
>> lingua franca may be English, but the WMF can't exclude research that is
>> not made in this language from an Award. I would understand if the
>> (non-existing) English Wikimedians User Group created the "EWUG Research in
>> English Award of the Year", but is not the case.
>> >
>> > I understand and acknowledge your point about inclusion. I hope some
>> > of the points I shared about our existing process in my other email
>> > can help you find possible solutions we can consider doing. :) On my
>> > end: I have a todo to come back to you all.
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > Leila
>> >
>> > > Cheers,
>> > >
>> > > Galder
>> > >
>> > > ________________________________
>> > > From: Leila Zia <[email protected]>
>> > > Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:04 PM
>> > > To: [email protected] <
>> [email protected]>
>> > > Cc: Wikimedia Mailing List <[email protected]>;
>> Discussion list for the Wikidata project. <[email protected]>
>> > > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: [Wiki-research-l] Re: The Wikimedia
>> Foundation Research Award of the Year - Call for Nominations
>> > >
>> > > Hi all, Thank you for your feedback. I take your comments as a sign of
>> > > genuine care and I'm happy to engage and learn with you how we can do
>> > > better. (Note: I'm responding to all lists, though some of the
>> > > feedback has been sent only to wikimedia-l.)
>> > >
>> > > * Galder, Gereon, Xavier, Gnangarra, and Andy: thank you for your
>> feedback.
>> > >
>> > > * Andy, I'll respond to your comment first. We do not require the work
>> > > to be published under a free license for us to consider it for the
>> > > award. However, if the work is shortlisted, we reach out to the
>> > > authors, tell them that it's shortlisted, and it can be considered for
>> > > the award if the work is at least made publicly available. At that
>> > > point, we also encourage the authors to publish under a free license
>> > > and share with them a few ways they may be able to (even if the work
>> > > is published somewhere already with restrictions). The issue of
>> > > licenses is on top of our mind and we actively look for ways to push
>> > > for more Wikimedia research work to be published under free licenses.
>> > >
>> > > * I am going to share with you some of my thoughts, and a possible
>> > > improvement we can make in the process.
>> > >
>> > > ** Let's try to keep things simple to be able to improve things
>> > > together. This is not a case of "WMF did x". The idea of the award was
>> > > created in the Research team, and both last year and this year, we've
>> > > been grateful to have the support of researchers outside of WMF for
>> > > it. (Aaron Shaw (Northwestern University), and Benjamin Mako Hill (U.
>> > > of Washington)). I take full responsibility for the execution of the
>> > > award and I can take your feedback and see where we can improve the
>> > > process. :)
>> > >
>> > > ** In order to be able to improve the process, I should share more
>> > > details about how we do the search for the publications first. We have
>> > > multiple sources for searching for research published in a given year:
>> > > 1. The nomination process we shared on this thread.
>> > > 2. Research publications shared in WikiResearch twitter account.
>> > > 3. External research search engines and repositories for different
>> > > fields: we use scholar.google.com, dblp.org and more.
>> > >
>> > > To give you a sense of the distribution of scholarly publications we
>> > > identified last year from each of the above sources: 11 nominations
>> > > and 170+ research publications through the twitter account and
>> > > external searches. The award chairs (2 people; this year it is going
>> > > to be Mako and I) reviewed all identified publications. We discussed
>> > > every publication at varying depth depending on the result of our
>> > > initial reviews.
>> > >
>> > > ** Knowing the process, there are at least a few ways I think the
>> > > process must be improved. I'm sure now that you see more you can
>> > > critique even more. :) I proactively share with you some of them here:
>> > > ::* I need to have an easychair account to nominate. That can/must
>> > > change (but to what? we want these nominations to be private, and we
>> > > need a way to be able to process them efficiently because we're only 2
>> > > people. We are considering openreview.net for the future years
>> because
>> > > they're open source; but they still have other limitations. For this
>> > > year, easychair it is.).
>> > > ::* We need more people on the committee: both for workload sharing,
>> > > and also including more perspectives. (This is /a lot/ to ask of
>> > > researchers. I'm grateful that Mako and Aaron have supported us in the
>> > > past.)
>> > > ::* We need other non-English sources to source community research.
>> > > (WikiResearch is primarily in English and about research published in
>> > > English.)
>> > > ::* The shared language of reviewers is assumed to be English. If we
>> > > are going to at scale consider other languages, then we need a way
>> > > that this group of people can converse on academic topics with one
>> > > another without having to share a language.
>> > >
>> > > ** I also understand the reality of the resources available to me and
>> > > our team. I understand the importance of working on multiple fronts
>> > > with regards to the research community (Wikimedia Research Funds, Wiki
>> > > Workshop, global research competitions, research showcases, monthly
>> > > office hours, talks and presentations, formal collaborations, and
>> > > more). I believe in the importance of motivation (and we have seen a
>> > > very good momentum around the award idea from last year's run). We
>> > > need to do many things, with very limited resources; Our values and
>> > > ideals are important and we have to attempt to hold them all as we
>> > > make decisions. In practice, sometimes we can't meet all the ambitions
>> > > we have. We need to make trade-offs. What is important is to be aware,
>> > > to listen, to try to improve, and to be honest.
>> > >
>> > > I will leave you with the above and I commit to talk with Mako to
>> > > consider ways to open up the process for more languages to be included
>> > > (in 2021 or in 2022+; I can't promise changes for the 2021 process.).
>> > > One of us will write back here with what we decide to do.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > Leila
>> > >
>> > > On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 5:42 AM Andy Mabbett <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > On Fri, 7 Jan 2022 at 19:48, Leila Zia <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > =Eligibility criteria=
>> > > >
>> > > > > * The publication must be available in English.
>> > > >
>> > > > I echo others' concerns about this.
>> > > >
>> > > > I'm equally concerned that, while WMF regard being in English as
>> > > > essential for one of their awards, they do not regard the use of an
>> > > > open licence as a requirement.
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > Andy Mabbett
>> > > > @pigsonthewing
>> > > > https://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>> > > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > Wiki-research-l mailing list -- [email protected]
>> > > > To unsubscribe send an email to
>> [email protected]
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected],
>> guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> > > Public archives at
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/OOQOYTEXTIUEFZNU636I3UMQLFBK7A7H/
>> > > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected],
>> guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> > > Public archives at
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/TZLPDY4SJW3LRT5OFR6ORXS5ZFMSV6XM/
>> > > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected],
>> guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> > Public archives at
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/CQUZB2G35KQM6KCYWMTD77CG226NK5QE/
>> > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected],
>> guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> > Public archives at
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/GAUENZS6G43BVUOT2C76F3KFAUR2UO4B/
>> > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikidata mailing list -- [email protected]
>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikidata mailing list -- [email protected]
>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>>
>
>
> --
> Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266
> _______________________________________________
> Wikidata mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>
--
Patricio Lorente
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
