design patterns for peer learning and peer production, with wikimedia case study - preprint

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

design patterns for peer learning and peer production, with wikimedia case study - preprint

Joe Corneli-3

http://metameso.org/~joe/docs/peeragogy_pattern_catalog_proceedings.pdf

is a preprint of the paper "Patterns of Peeragogy" to appear in
Proceedings of Pattern Languages of Programs 2015.

Abstract: We describe nine design patterns that we have developed in our
work on the Peeragogy project, in which we aim to help design the future
of learning, inside and outside of institutions. We use these patterns
to build an “emergent roadmap” for the project.

This paper may be of interest to people here, particularly since we
trace through the ways in which the patterns manifest in Wikimedia
projects.

The final revision is due January 15th so comments before then still
have a chance to improve the final document.

When it appears, the bibtex citation will be:

@inproceedings{patterns-of-peeragogy,
title={Patterns of {P}eeragogy},
author={Corneli, Joseph and Danoff, Charles Jeffrey and Pierce, Charlotte and Ricuarte, Paola and Snow MacDonald, Lisa},
booktitle={Pattern {L}anguages of {P}rograms {C}onference 2015 ({PLoP'15}), {P}ittsburgh, {PA}, {USA}, {O}ctober 24-26, 2015},
editor={Correia, Filipe},
year={2015},
publisher={ACM}}


_______________________________________________
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: design patterns for peer learning and peer production, with wikimedia case study - preprint

Oliver Keyes-4
Hey Joe,

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.

The inclusion of carrying capacity, and explicit recognition of the
costs of labour overall, is great to see. But I would love to see
roadmaps that factor in the "dark side" here, and the specific
emotional labour costs of dealing with that dark side.

Without factoring those things in, the practical utility of the
roadmaps - outside of publishing - is likely to be somewhat
constrained and difficult to scale. And in a year where we have
learned more and more about the costs around a lot of collaborative
and communicative environments, from Wikipedia to Twitter, including
these things (or recognising them) is really not optional. I don't see
it discussed in your work (I admit that I may have just missed it, and
please let me know if so!)

The patterns themselves are excellent, however, and I really like the
structure of the work. 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)

On 28 December 2015 at 09:17, Joe Corneli <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> http://metameso.org/~joe/docs/peeragogy_pattern_catalog_proceedings.pdf
>
> is a preprint of the paper "Patterns of Peeragogy" to appear in
> Proceedings of Pattern Languages of Programs 2015.
>
> Abstract: We describe nine design patterns that we have developed in our
> work on the Peeragogy project, in which we aim to help design the future
> of learning, inside and outside of institutions. We use these patterns
> to build an “emergent roadmap” for the project.
>
> This paper may be of interest to people here, particularly since we
> trace through the ways in which the patterns manifest in Wikimedia
> projects.
>
> The final revision is due January 15th so comments before then still
> have a chance to improve the final document.
>
> When it appears, the bibtex citation will be:
>
> @inproceedings{patterns-of-peeragogy,
> title={Patterns of {P}eeragogy},
> author={Corneli, Joseph and Danoff, Charles Jeffrey and Pierce, Charlotte and Ricuarte, Paola and Snow MacDonald, Lisa},
> booktitle={Pattern {L}anguages of {P}rograms {C}onference 2015 ({PLoP'15}), {P}ittsburgh, {PA}, {USA}, {O}ctober 24-26, 2015},
> editor={Correia, Filipe},
> year={2015},
> publisher={ACM}}
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l



--
Oliver Keyes
Count Logula
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: design patterns for peer learning and peer production, with wikimedia case study - preprint

Joe Corneli-3
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"!

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.

Joe

_______________________________________________
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: design patterns for peer learning and peer production, with wikimedia case study - preprint

Oliver Keyes-4
On 28 December 2015 at 10:03, Joe Corneli <[hidden email]> 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
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l



--
Oliver Keyes
Count Logula
Wikimedia Foundation

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