Generalizability of research across different language versions

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Generalizability of research across different language versions

Jan Dittrich
Hello  researchers,

 A lot of research on Wikipedia is published in English and also uses the
English Wikipedia as source of data or researchers get their participants
via English Wikipedia [0].

A frequent criticism I meet when discussing such research with non-en.wp
community members is that their Wikipedia is different and the results of
en.wp base research are problematic/incomparable/totally useless.

So I want to ask:
- Do you know of research comparing different Wikis, preferably across
language versions? [1]
- How would you deal with such criticism, particularly of the "if it is not
about 'my' wp it is useless"-kind [2]?

Kind Regards,
 Jan

____
[0] Plausible due to academi fields, particularly Computer Science,
publishing mainly in english, size and WMF as actor being US-based.
[1] I know of »revisiting "The Rise and Decline" in a Population of Peer
Production Projects« (https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3173929),
comparing different Wikia-Wikis; Research like "limits of
self-organization" (https://firstmonday.org/article/view/1405/1323) that
refer to general principles of peer production. Comparisons of Wikipedias
across languages and the impact of their different contexts, languages and
regulations would be very interesting to me.
[2] I'm aware that making heterogeneous things comparable is seen as a core
academic/scientific activity in STS research (Law, SL Star, Turnbull…) so I
do not want to say, transfer to a different setting is not a problem – but
it is certainly not "totally useless" either.

--
Jan Dittrich
UX Design/ Research

Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
https://wikimedia.de

Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der Menschheit
teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
https://spenden.wikimedia.de

Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Generalizability of research across different language versions

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
Just consider, when a language is taught in secondary school and a
Wikipedia has < 2500 articles.. What is the purpose of all education
related research particularly when in university the language is not
taught? Now consider that our research is about professor types teaching on
universities ... interesting sure applicable hardly. In the same vein, with
< 2500 articles we DO want secondary school information included. When you
consider languages like Malayalam, the importance of Wikisource compared to
English is utterly different. English has Open Library and while it is
wonderful, its user interface is English only..

When you consider the use of Commons and Wikidata, they are not at all
usable in most other languages AND we do not have a strategy how to make
them usable in other languages. Realise that the technical ability to make
things multi lingual does not make them usable in multiple languages.. It
is why I have my Africa project and hope to find people interesting in the
approach. [1]

The problem with science is not in the science itself. The problem is that
any marketing notion are absent. You study how it works and it does not
translate in ways and means that make a difference. Even the notion of
teaching Wikidata by teaching them to query is in and of itself problematic
[2]. It is problematic because there are no labels in other languages and
there are no strategies to populate the labels in other languages not even
for sub sets.

Thanks,
      GerardM

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GerardM/Africa
[2]
https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2019/10/what-data-is-wrangled-is-obvious-when.html


On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 13:36, Jan Dittrich <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello  researchers,
>
>  A lot of research on Wikipedia is published in English and also uses the
> English Wikipedia as source of data or researchers get their participants
> via English Wikipedia [0].
>
> A frequent criticism I meet when discussing such research with non-en.wp
> community members is that their Wikipedia is different and the results of
> en.wp base research are problematic/incomparable/totally useless.
>
> So I want to ask:
> - Do you know of research comparing different Wikis, preferably across
> language versions? [1]
> - How would you deal with such criticism, particularly of the "if it is not
> about 'my' wp it is useless"-kind [2]?
>
> Kind Regards,
>  Jan
>
> ____
> [0] Plausible due to academi fields, particularly Computer Science,
> publishing mainly in english, size and WMF as actor being US-based.
> [1] I know of »revisiting "The Rise and Decline" in a Population of Peer
> Production Projects« (https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3173929),
> comparing different Wikia-Wikis; Research like "limits of
> self-organization" (https://firstmonday.org/article/view/1405/1323) that
> refer to general principles of peer production. Comparisons of Wikipedias
> across languages and the impact of their different contexts, languages and
> regulations would be very interesting to me.
> [2] I'm aware that making heterogeneous things comparable is seen as a core
> academic/scientific activity in STS research (Law, SL Star, Turnbull…) so I
> do not want to say, transfer to a different setting is not a problem – but
> it is certainly not "totally useless" either.
>
> --
> Jan Dittrich
> UX Design/ Research
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
> https://wikimedia.de
>
> Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der Menschheit
> teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
> https://spenden.wikimedia.de
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
> der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
> Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Generalizability of research across different language versions

Federico Leva (Nemo)
In reply to this post by Jan Dittrich
Jan Dittrich, 02/10/19 14:35:
> - How would you deal with such criticism, particularly of the "if it is not
> about 'my' wp it is useless"-kind [2]?

At a minimum, the research needs to have used methods which could extend
to multiple wikis. Being about 2 languages is ten times better than
being about 1 only, while being about 100 language subdomains is not a
hundred times more informative. Involving multiple languages helps go
beyond the language-specific and wiki-specific constructs (like
templates, workflows etc.).

Federico

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Generalizability of research across different language versions

Isaac Johnson
Jan,
You bring up a good point. I feel like there has been a gradual shift
towards research across multiple language communities over the past few
years and that is starting to lead to some informal insights into this
question of transfer of findings across languages / cultures. First a few
examples in case you wish to explore yourself:
* Motivation / needs of Wikipedia readers across 13 different languages:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reader_Behaviour/Prevalence_of_Wikipedia_use_cases
* Motivation / behavior of new editors across Czech and Korean Wikipedias
(with some ongoing work in Vietnamese and Arabic Wikipedia as well I
believe):
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Growth/Analytics_updates/EditorJourney_initial_report
* Reading time across many wikis:
https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=3306446.3340829
* Predicting aggregate page view in languages/regions where the takeaway
was that language was more important than geographic region when it comes
to predicting page views:
http://wikiworkshop.org/2019/papers/Wiki_Workshop_2019_paper_3.pdf
* Enabling page previews in English / German:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Page_Previews/2017-18_A/B_Tests
* Usage of the "Thanks" feature across a number of languages:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Understanding_thanks
* Effect on tourism of additional content about places in Dutch, German,
French, and Italian:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3046400
* Some data on the usage of blocks on various wikis:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_health_initiative/Measuring_the_effectiveness_of_blocks
* A bunch of data on the prevalence of anonymous editing on different
languages / projects:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IP_Editing:_Privacy_Enhancement_and_Abuse_Mitigation/Research
* Scott Hale has also done some work on multilingual editing that might be
worth exploring: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.00657v2.pdf and
https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.0976
* Statistics on content overlap across wikis:
https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikidata_Concepts_Monitor#Wikidata_usage_patterns
or
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Expanding_Wikipedia_articles_across_languages/Inter_language_approach#Article_Alignment

In general, my personal views are:
* Language (presumably partially as a proxy for culture) is by far the most
salient aspect when it comes to understanding differences in behavior etc.
across wikis
* I hesitate to make broad statements about cultural differences, but there
are certain wikis that are more / less interconnected. For instance, there
is a good bit of overlap between Hindi Wikipedia and various other language
editions associated with India (Gujarati, Marathi, etc.). Same is true for
various languages in Spain (Asturian, Basque, Catalan, Spanish, etc.) and
Ukrainian / Russian Wikipedias.
* Obviously size matters a lot too in certain cases when it comes to
editing / maintenance workflows, though I would argue it's less of a factor
when it comes to reader behavior.
* Some wikis do have a reputation of being quite distinct -- for instance,
I would be hesitant to generalize anything to/from Japanese Wikipedia
because the statistics regarding interactions etc. there often look much
different than other wikis.

I would love to see some meta analyses that begin to look at similarities
in behavior or settings (e.g., AbuseFilters, rules around
ContentTranslation) across lots of different metrics to guide our
understanding of the similarities and differences between the language
communities. Until then, I would say there are going to be instances when
research on one wiki tells you little about how another wiki would react
(+1 to what Nemo says about even two is much much better than one language,
especially if they are much different languages/cultures). But there are
also often statistics you might pull up to make inferences around how
findings might transfer -- e.g., statistics on anonymous editing and
reverts might tell you something about how introducing new types of IP
blocks would play out in a new community.

On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 10:46 AM Federico Leva (Nemo) <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Jan Dittrich, 02/10/19 14:35:
> > - How would you deal with such criticism, particularly of the "if it is
> not
> > about 'my' wp it is useless"-kind [2]?
>
> At a minimum, the research needs to have used methods which could extend
> to multiple wikis. Being about 2 languages is ten times better than
> being about 1 only, while being about 100 language subdomains is not a
> hundred times more informative. Involving multiple languages helps go
> beyond the language-specific and wiki-specific constructs (like
> templates, workflows etc.).
>
> Federico
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>


--
Isaac Johnson -- Research Scientist -- Wikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Generalizability of research across different language versions

Amir E. Aharoni
In reply to this post by Jan Dittrich
Thanks a lot for bringing this up.

Sorry for not offering a solution, but I do want to mention a
frequently-missed aspect of the problem: Wikis in different languages have
some differences that are understandable because they reflect some
objective cultural characteristics of the people who speak it. But some
differences are artificial and exit because in the early days of Wikimedia
(mid-2000s) there were no convenient ways for wikis to communicate and
share info. There were no global accounts and no convenient translation
tools.

Templates are still not global, even though there is huge demand for it,[1]
and a lot of community process are implemented using templates: requests
for deletion, requests for unblocking, article sorting for WikiProjects,
stub sorting. Many of these things could be unified, at least partially, by
making templates global, and among many benefits, it would make research
easier, too.

[1] It came at #3 in the Community Wishlist vote in 2015, and at #1 in
2016. Despite this demand, it was not implemented :(

--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬


‫בתאריך יום ד׳, 2 באוק׳ 2019 ב-14:37 מאת ‪Jan Dittrich‬‏ <‪
[hidden email]‬‏>:‬

> Hello  researchers,
>
>  A lot of research on Wikipedia is published in English and also uses the
> English Wikipedia as source of data or researchers get their participants
> via English Wikipedia [0].
>
> A frequent criticism I meet when discussing such research with non-en.wp
> community members is that their Wikipedia is different and the results of
> en.wp base research are problematic/incomparable/totally useless.
>
> So I want to ask:
> - Do you know of research comparing different Wikis, preferably across
> language versions? [1]
> - How would you deal with such criticism, particularly of the "if it is not
> about 'my' wp it is useless"-kind [2]?
>
> Kind Regards,
>  Jan
>
> ____
> [0] Plausible due to academi fields, particularly Computer Science,
> publishing mainly in english, size and WMF as actor being US-based.
> [1] I know of »revisiting "The Rise and Decline" in a Population of Peer
> Production Projects« (https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3173929),
> comparing different Wikia-Wikis; Research like "limits of
> self-organization" (https://firstmonday.org/article/view/1405/1323) that
> refer to general principles of peer production. Comparisons of Wikipedias
> across languages and the impact of their different contexts, languages and
> regulations would be very interesting to me.
> [2] I'm aware that making heterogeneous things comparable is seen as a core
> academic/scientific activity in STS research (Law, SL Star, Turnbull…) so I
> do not want to say, transfer to a different setting is not a problem – but
> it is certainly not "totally useless" either.
>
> --
> Jan Dittrich
> UX Design/ Research
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
> https://wikimedia.de
>
> Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der Menschheit
> teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
> https://spenden.wikimedia.de
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
> der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
> Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Generalizability of research across different language versions

Lucie Kaffee
Just adding a small point I saw while interviewing editors of different
language Wikipedias: I believe (and haven't further investigated, so take
this with a grain of salt) that there is also a general difference in the
behavior of "small" and "large" communities, e.g., in trust between the
editors and how they work together. This seemed to be independent of other
cultural context, but this is rather anecdotal and would be interesting to
see further investigated.
I find it generally a very interesting topic and look forward to what
results from the discussion here, so far I see research only applying their
methods across Wikipedias rather than drawing conclusion from one language
version to another.
Thanks Isaac also for the collection of reading material :)

On Thu, Oct 3, 2019, 16:23 Amir E. Aharoni <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Thanks a lot for bringing this up.
>
> Sorry for not offering a solution, but I do want to mention a
> frequently-missed aspect of the problem: Wikis in different languages have
> some differences that are understandable because they reflect some
> objective cultural characteristics of the people who speak it. But some
> differences are artificial and exit because in the early days of Wikimedia
> (mid-2000s) there were no convenient ways for wikis to communicate and
> share info. There were no global accounts and no convenient translation
> tools.
>
> Templates are still not global, even though there is huge demand for it,[1]
> and a lot of community process are implemented using templates: requests
> for deletion, requests for unblocking, article sorting for WikiProjects,
> stub sorting. Many of these things could be unified, at least partially, by
> making templates global, and among many benefits, it would make research
> easier, too.
>
> [1] It came at #3 in the Community Wishlist vote in 2015, and at #1 in
> 2016. Despite this demand, it was not implemented :(
>
> --
> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
> http://aharoni.wordpress.com
> ‪“We're living in pieces,
> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
>
>
> ‫בתאריך יום ד׳, 2 באוק׳ 2019 ב-14:37 מאת ‪Jan Dittrich‬‏ <‪
> [hidden email]‬‏>:‬
>
> > Hello  researchers,
> >
> >  A lot of research on Wikipedia is published in English and also uses the
> > English Wikipedia as source of data or researchers get their participants
> > via English Wikipedia [0].
> >
> > A frequent criticism I meet when discussing such research with non-en.wp
> > community members is that their Wikipedia is different and the results of
> > en.wp base research are problematic/incomparable/totally useless.
> >
> > So I want to ask:
> > - Do you know of research comparing different Wikis, preferably across
> > language versions? [1]
> > - How would you deal with such criticism, particularly of the "if it is
> not
> > about 'my' wp it is useless"-kind [2]?
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> >  Jan
> >
> > ____
> > [0] Plausible due to academi fields, particularly Computer Science,
> > publishing mainly in english, size and WMF as actor being US-based.
> > [1] I know of »revisiting "The Rise and Decline" in a Population of Peer
> > Production Projects« (https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3173929),
> > comparing different Wikia-Wikis; Research like "limits of
> > self-organization" (https://firstmonday.org/article/view/1405/1323) that
> > refer to general principles of peer production. Comparisons of Wikipedias
> > across languages and the impact of their different contexts, languages
> and
> > regulations would be very interesting to me.
> > [2] I'm aware that making heterogeneous things comparable is seen as a
> core
> > academic/scientific activity in STS research (Law, SL Star, Turnbull…)
> so I
> > do not want to say, transfer to a different setting is not a problem –
> but
> > it is certainly not "totally useless" either.
> >
> > --
> > Jan Dittrich
> > UX Design/ Research
> >
> > Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> > Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
> > https://wikimedia.de
> >
> > Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der
> Menschheit
> > teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
> > https://spenden.wikimedia.de
> >
> > Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
> > Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
> unter
> > der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
> > Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Generalizability of research across different language versions

Ziko van Dijk-3
Hello, indeed a very interesting topic, and one should really treat small
and big Wikipedias as very different kinds of websites. Just alone that on
big Wikipedias, you have and use a watchlist, while on a small Wikipedia,
you basically use the Recent changes.
A systematic comparison would be great. My paper ten years ago was more a
survey on the topic by itself: Ziko van Dijk: Wikipedia and
lesser-resourced languages. In: *Language Problems and Language Planning*
33 (2009, Nr. 3, Herbst), S. 234-255.
Actually in the book I am working on right now, such a systematic
comparison would be a very useful example for how to apply my wiki model...
:-)
Kind regards
Ziko



Am Do., 3. Okt. 2019 um 21:13 Uhr schrieb Lucie Kaffee <
[hidden email]>:

> Just adding a small point I saw while interviewing editors of different
> language Wikipedias: I believe (and haven't further investigated, so take
> this with a grain of salt) that there is also a general difference in the
> behavior of "small" and "large" communities, e.g., in trust between the
> editors and how they work together. This seemed to be independent of other
> cultural context, but this is rather anecdotal and would be interesting to
> see further investigated.
> I find it generally a very interesting topic and look forward to what
> results from the discussion here, so far I see research only applying their
> methods across Wikipedias rather than drawing conclusion from one language
> version to another.
> Thanks Isaac also for the collection of reading material :)
>
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2019, 16:23 Amir E. Aharoni <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks a lot for bringing this up.
> >
> > Sorry for not offering a solution, but I do want to mention a
> > frequently-missed aspect of the problem: Wikis in different languages
> have
> > some differences that are understandable because they reflect some
> > objective cultural characteristics of the people who speak it. But some
> > differences are artificial and exit because in the early days of
> Wikimedia
> > (mid-2000s) there were no convenient ways for wikis to communicate and
> > share info. There were no global accounts and no convenient translation
> > tools.
> >
> > Templates are still not global, even though there is huge demand for
> it,[1]
> > and a lot of community process are implemented using templates: requests
> > for deletion, requests for unblocking, article sorting for WikiProjects,
> > stub sorting. Many of these things could be unified, at least partially,
> by
> > making templates global, and among many benefits, it would make research
> > easier, too.
> >
> > [1] It came at #3 in the Community Wishlist vote in 2015, and at #1 in
> > 2016. Despite this demand, it was not implemented :(
> >
> > --
> > Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
> > http://aharoni.wordpress.com
> > ‪“We're living in pieces,
> > I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
> >
> >
> > ‫בתאריך יום ד׳, 2 באוק׳ 2019 ב-14:37 מאת ‪Jan Dittrich‬‏ <‪
> > [hidden email]‬‏>:‬
> >
> > > Hello  researchers,
> > >
> > >  A lot of research on Wikipedia is published in English and also uses
> the
> > > English Wikipedia as source of data or researchers get their
> participants
> > > via English Wikipedia [0].
> > >
> > > A frequent criticism I meet when discussing such research with
> non-en.wp
> > > community members is that their Wikipedia is different and the results
> of
> > > en.wp base research are problematic/incomparable/totally useless.
> > >
> > > So I want to ask:
> > > - Do you know of research comparing different Wikis, preferably across
> > > language versions? [1]
> > > - How would you deal with such criticism, particularly of the "if it is
> > not
> > > about 'my' wp it is useless"-kind [2]?
> > >
> > > Kind Regards,
> > >  Jan
> > >
> > > ____
> > > [0] Plausible due to academi fields, particularly Computer Science,
> > > publishing mainly in english, size and WMF as actor being US-based.
> > > [1] I know of »revisiting "The Rise and Decline" in a Population of
> Peer
> > > Production Projects« (https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3173929),
> > > comparing different Wikia-Wikis; Research like "limits of
> > > self-organization" (https://firstmonday.org/article/view/1405/1323)
> that
> > > refer to general principles of peer production. Comparisons of
> Wikipedias
> > > across languages and the impact of their different contexts, languages
> > and
> > > regulations would be very interesting to me.
> > > [2] I'm aware that making heterogeneous things comparable is seen as a
> > core
> > > academic/scientific activity in STS research (Law, SL Star, Turnbull…)
> > so I
> > > do not want to say, transfer to a different setting is not a problem –
> > but
> > > it is certainly not "totally useless" either.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jan Dittrich
> > > UX Design/ Research
> > >
> > > Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> > > Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
> > > https://wikimedia.de
> > >
> > > Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der
> > Menschheit
> > > teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
> > > https://spenden.wikimedia.de
> > >
> > > Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
> > > Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
> > unter
> > > der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
> > > Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Generalizability of research across different language versions

Kerry Raymond
In reply to this post by Amir E. Aharoni
Perhaps off-topic here, but when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail ...

In the case of Wikipedia, we use templates and tracking categories as a poor man's solution to having any actual support for workflows and dashboards to manage processes. While phabricator is not great, it's still a step in the right direction.

When I run large projects like our heritage register article rollout, I use spreadsheets held on Google Drive as it is easier to collaborate that way than on-wiki for a couple of really simple reasons:

Wikipedia tables can't be manipulated like spreadsheets (e.g. queries like "which heritage entries are currently without an infobox photo and in the City of Sydney"). You can't store article drafts on Wikipedia in any name space because of the categories in them.

Oh and we use email to collaborate on these projects because Talk is useless and frankly you don't need the peanut gallery looking on and wasting everyone's time. There are plenty of people who love to demand how others should implement a project despite having no intention to actually contribute to the work of the project. I think we should have some sort of rule on Wikipedia that you can't write more bytes on Talk pages than you've written in article content :-)

So I think the small Wikipedias should be careful what they wish for when it comes to templates ... I got told off the other day for not having used the right presentation for an edit war report (I was a bystander not involved in a set of edit wars occurring across a large group of article). My reaction was "fine, I won't bother to report one again". Therein lie the dangers of using templates for business processes.

Kerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Wiki-research-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Amir E. Aharoni
Sent: Friday, 4 October 2019 12:23 AM
To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Generalizability of research across different language versions

Thanks a lot for bringing this up.

Sorry for not offering a solution, but I do want to mention a frequently-missed aspect of the problem: Wikis in different languages have some differences that are understandable because they reflect some objective cultural characteristics of the people who speak it. But some differences are artificial and exit because in the early days of Wikimedia
(mid-2000s) there were no convenient ways for wikis to communicate and share info. There were no global accounts and no convenient translation tools.

Templates are still not global, even though there is huge demand for it,[1] and a lot of community process are implemented using templates: requests for deletion, requests for unblocking, article sorting for WikiProjects, stub sorting. Many of these things could be unified, at least partially, by making templates global, and among many benefits, it would make research easier, too.

[1] It came at #3 in the Community Wishlist vote in 2015, and at #1 in 2016. Despite this demand, it was not implemented :(

--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com ‪“We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬


‫בתאריך יום ד׳, 2 באוק׳ 2019 ב-14:37 מאת ‪Jan Dittrich‬‏ <‪ [hidden email]‬‏>:‬

> Hello  researchers,
>
>  A lot of research on Wikipedia is published in English and also uses
> the English Wikipedia as source of data or researchers get their
> participants via English Wikipedia [0].
>
> A frequent criticism I meet when discussing such research with
> non-en.wp community members is that their Wikipedia is different and
> the results of en.wp base research are problematic/incomparable/totally useless.
>
> So I want to ask:
> - Do you know of research comparing different Wikis, preferably across
> language versions? [1]
> - How would you deal with such criticism, particularly of the "if it
> is not about 'my' wp it is useless"-kind [2]?
>
> Kind Regards,
>  Jan
>
> ____
> [0] Plausible due to academi fields, particularly Computer Science,
> publishing mainly in english, size and WMF as actor being US-based.
> [1] I know of »revisiting "The Rise and Decline" in a Population of
> Peer Production Projects«
> (https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3173929),
> comparing different Wikia-Wikis; Research like "limits of
> self-organization" (https://firstmonday.org/article/view/1405/1323)
> that refer to general principles of peer production. Comparisons of
> Wikipedias across languages and the impact of their different
> contexts, languages and regulations would be very interesting to me.
> [2] I'm aware that making heterogeneous things comparable is seen as a
> core academic/scientific activity in STS research (Law, SL Star,
> Turnbull…) so I do not want to say, transfer to a different setting is
> not a problem – but it is certainly not "totally useless" either.
>
> --
> Jan Dittrich
> UX Design/ Research
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 https://wikimedia.de
>
> Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der
> Menschheit teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
> https://spenden.wikimedia.de
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
> unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das
> Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l


_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l