I read it several times before figuring out (maybe?) that this is a request that update the list of questions at [[WP:WD]]. That page looks rather...well, "outdated" is an understatement...
However, it would seem to me that a researcher would generate questions to research by looking at the discussion sections of recent papers on the topic of Wikipedia. Usually in the discussion section, the author mentions something like "more research needs to be done on /x/ /topic/." God bless, Bob On 3/14/2011 11:28 PM, Elias Friedman wrote: > Sad to say, I only read about a quarter of it before I gave up too. > > Sent from my Droid2 > Elias Friedman A.S., CCEMT-P > אליהו מתתיהו בן צבי > [email protected] > On Mar 15, 2011 12:25 AM, "I Love Plankton"<[email protected]> wrote: >> TL;DR wall of text amirite? >> >> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 9:40 PM, Chitu Okoli<[email protected] >> wrote: >> >>> [Apologies for cross-posting; this same e-mail is being sent to >>> wikipedia-l, WikiEN-l and foundation-l] >>> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> We are a research group conducting a systematic literature review on >>> Wikipedia-related peer-reviewed academic studies published in the English >>> language. (Although there are many excellent studies in other languages, > we >>> unfortunately do not have the resources to systematically review these at >>> any kind of acceptable scholarly level. Also, our study is about > Wikipedia >>> only, not about other Wikimedia Foundation projects. However, we do > include >>> studies about other language Wikipedias, as long as the studies are >>> published in English.) We have completed a search using many major > databases >>> of scholarly research. We've posted separate messages to wiki-research-l >>> related to this literature review. >>> >>> We have identified over 2,100 peer-reviewed studies that have > "wikipedia", >>> "wikipedian", or "wikipedians" in their title, abstract or keywords. As > this >>> number of studies is far too large for conducting a review synthesis, we >>> have decided to focus only on peer-reviewed journal publications and >>> doctoral theses; we identified 638 such studies. In addition, we > identified >>> around 1,500 peer-reviewed conference articles. >>> >>> We hope that our review would provide useful insights for both > wikipedians >>> and researchers. (Although we know that most Wikipedia researchers are > also >>> wikipedians, we define wikipedian or "Wikipedia practitioner" here as >>> someone involved in the Wikipedia project who is not also a scholarly >>> researcher.) In particular, here is a list of some of the research > questions >>> we are investigating in our review that are particularly pertinent to >>> wikipedians (you can check wiki-research-l for the full set of research >>> questions): >>> >>> 1. What high-quality research has been conducted with Wikipedia as a > major >>> topic or data source? As mentioned in the introductory e-mail, we have >>> already identified over 2,100 studies, though we will only analyze 638 of >>> them in depth. We will group the articles by field of study. >>> >>> 2. What research questions have been asked by various sources, both >>> academic scholarly and practitioner? We want to know both the subjects > that >>> the existing research has covered, and also catalogue key questions that >>> practitioners would like to be answered, whether or not academic research >>> has broached these questions. Also, we categorize the research questions >>> based on their purposes. >>> >>> 6. What conclusions have been made from existing research? That is, what >>> questions from RQ2 have been answered, and what are these answers? >>> >>> 7. What questions from RQ2 are left unanswered? (These present directions >>> for future research.) >>> >>> >>> Regarding our RQ2, on the research questions that have been asked, we > want >>> to identify not only the research questions that we extract from the >>> articles, but also what questions are of interest that have not been >>> studied. For this, we have identified a few banks of Wikipedia-related >>> research questions. >>> >>> We are most of all interested in questions that wikipedians are asking, >>> other than what researchers are asking. There is an old list of research >>> questions or goals at >>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Research_Goals; these >>> questions are about Wikimedia Foundation projects in general, though >>> Wikipedia is of course included. Could you please review this list and >>> update that page directly with any additional questions? Alternately, you >>> could reply us directly, and we could update the list. >>> >>> Another bank of questions we have identified is more directed towards >>> academics and researchers: >>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikidemia#Research_Questions > . >>> We have asked the wiki-research-l subscribers to update that list. We > will >>> draw from both lists for our bank of research questions. >>> >>> Thanks for your help. >>> >>> Chitu Okoli, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada >>> ( >>> > http://chitu.okoli.org/professional/open-content/wikipedia-and-open-content.html >>> ) >>> Arto Lanamäki, University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway >>> Mohamad Mehdi, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada >>> Mostafa Mesgari, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikipedia-l mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikipedia-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l > _______________________________________________ > Wikipedia-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
