this month's research newsletter

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
38 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

this month's research newsletter

Heather Ford-3
Thanks so much for the newsletter [1]! Always a great read...

But have to just say that comments like this: 'it is disappointing that the main purpose appears to be completing a thesis, with little thought to actually improving Wikipedia' [2] are really harsh and a little unfair. The student is studying Wikipedia - they can hardly only be interested in completing their thesis. We need to remember that researchers are at very different stages of their careers, they have very different motivations, and different levels of engagement with the Wikipedia community, but that *all* research on Wikipedia contributes to our understanding (even if as a catalyst for improvements). We want to encourage more research on Wikipedia, not attack the motivations of people we know little about - particularly when they're just students and particularly when this newsletter is on housed on Wikimedia Foundation's domain.  

Best,
Heather.



_______________________________________________
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: this month's research newsletter

Federico Leva (Nemo)
Heather Ford, 01/07/2014 14:37:
> We want to encourage more research on Wikipedia, not attack the
> motivations of people we know little about

I'm not sure about the specific wording, but I think the intention is
only to stress the importance of open access/open source/open data in
research on Wikimedia projects and wikis. I think it's fair for a
Wikimedia community publication to call "disappointing" a closed source,
non-replicable experiment.

Nemo

_______________________________________________
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: this month's research newsletter

Joe Corneli-3

Federico Leva (Nemo) <[hidden email]> writes:

> Heather Ford, 01/07/2014 14:37:
>> We want to encourage more research on Wikipedia, not attack the
>> motivations of people we know little about
>
> I'm not sure about the specific wording, but I think the intention is
> only to stress the importance of open access/open source/open data in
> research on Wikimedia projects and wikis. I think it's fair for a
> Wikimedia community publication to call "disappointing" a closed source,
> non-replicable experiment.

Why should we infer that the experiment is not replicable?  Open source
software isn't a requirement for that.  At the same time, given that the
review finds the comparison to Wikipedia "misleading", why should we
assume that open source tools would convey any benefit to their putative
Wikipedian users?  If however the research is sufficiently interesting
that the reviewer would like to have a look at the software, wouldn't it
be polite to ask the person for a copy, rather than give them a negative
review because they (for whatever reasons) didn't already release the
software?  Maybe they had a good reason for that - if not, they might be
happy to share if asked.

From the review:

> this reviewer was unable to locate any proof that the developer
> engaged the Wikipedia community

It's possible that they might have had a good reason for that, too.  It
probably doesn't make their research less valid *as research* although
it would make some claims weaker -- and/or call for further research, as
studies usually do.  Again, if it's of genuine interest, the interested
party just might have to do the good old fashioned thing and ring up the
author, thereby rendering them *part* of a community, rather than
alienating them since they didn't happen to call first.

_______________________________________________
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: this month's research newsletter

Han-Teng Liao (OII)-2
In reply to this post by Heather Ford-3
The tone of the sentence in question 

    'it is disappointing that the main purpose appears to be completing a thesis, with little thought to actually improving Wikipedia'

could have been written as 
  
    'It would be more useful for the Wikipedia community of practice if the author discussed or even spelled out the implications of the research for improving Wikipedia".

    This suggestion is based on my own impression that [Wiki-research-l] has mainly two groups of readers: community of practice and community of knowledge. It is okay to have some group tensions for creative/critical inputs. Still, a neutral tone is better for assessment, and an encouraging tone might work a bit better to encourage others to fill the *gaps* (both practice and knowledge ones). 

    Also, the factors such as originally intended audience and word limits may determine how much a writer can do for *due weight* (similar to [[WP:due]]). If the original (academic) author failed to address the implications for practices satisfactory, a research newsletter contributor can point out what s/he thinks the potential/actual implications are. (My thanks to the research newsletter's voluntary contributors for their unpaid work!)

    While I understand that the monthly research newsletter has its own perspective and interests different from academic newsletters, it does not sacrifice the integrity of the newsletter to be gentle and specific. I would recommend a minor edit to the sentence as the the newsletter could be read by any one in the world, not just the Wikipedians. It is public/published for all readers, and thus please do not assume the readers know the context of Wikipedia research. 
     
Best,

han-teng liao


2014-07-01 19:37 GMT+07:00 Heather Ford <[hidden email]>:
Thanks so much for the newsletter [1]! Always a great read...

But have to just say that comments like this: 'it is disappointing that the main purpose appears to be completing a thesis, with little thought to actually improving Wikipedia' [2] are really harsh and a little unfair. The student is studying Wikipedia - they can hardly only be interested in completing their thesis. We need to remember that researchers are at very different stages of their careers, they have very different motivations, and different levels of engagement with the Wikipedia community, but that *all* research on Wikipedia contributes to our understanding (even if as a catalyst for improvements). We want to encourage more research on Wikipedia, not attack the motivations of people we know little about - particularly when they're just students and particularly when this newsletter is on housed on Wikimedia Foundation's domain.  

Best,
Heather.



_______________________________________________
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: this month's research newsletter

Heather Ford-3
+1 Thanks for your really thoughtful comments, Joe, Han-Teng. 

Nemo, would you be willing to add a note to the review and/or contacting the researcher?

Best,
Heather.



On 2 July 2014 05:17, h <[hidden email]> wrote:
The tone of the sentence in question 

    'it is disappointing that the main purpose appears to be completing a thesis, with little thought to actually improving Wikipedia'

could have been written as 
  
    'It would be more useful for the Wikipedia community of practice if the author discussed or even spelled out the implications of the research for improving Wikipedia".

    This suggestion is based on my own impression that [Wiki-research-l] has mainly two groups of readers: community of practice and community of knowledge. It is okay to have some group tensions for creative/critical inputs. Still, a neutral tone is better for assessment, and an encouraging tone might work a bit better to encourage others to fill the *gaps* (both practice and knowledge ones). 

    Also, the factors such as originally intended audience and word limits may determine how much a writer can do for *due weight* (similar to [[WP:due]]). If the original (academic) author failed to address the implications for practices satisfactory, a research newsletter contributor can point out what s/he thinks the potential/actual implications are. (My thanks to the research newsletter's voluntary contributors for their unpaid work!)

    While I understand that the monthly research newsletter has its own perspective and interests different from academic newsletters, it does not sacrifice the integrity of the newsletter to be gentle and specific. I would recommend a minor edit to the sentence as the the newsletter could be read by any one in the world, not just the Wikipedians. It is public/published for all readers, and thus please do not assume the readers know the context of Wikipedia research. 
     
Best,

han-teng liao


2014-07-01 19:37 GMT+07:00 Heather Ford <[hidden email]>:
Thanks so much for the newsletter [1]! Always a great read...

But have to just say that comments like this: 'it is disappointing that the main purpose appears to be completing a thesis, with little thought to actually improving Wikipedia' [2] are really harsh and a little unfair. The student is studying Wikipedia - they can hardly only be interested in completing their thesis. We need to remember that researchers are at very different stages of their careers, they have very different motivations, and different levels of engagement with the Wikipedia community, but that *all* research on Wikipedia contributes to our understanding (even if as a catalyst for improvements). We want to encourage more research on Wikipedia, not attack the motivations of people we know little about - particularly when they're just students and particularly when this newsletter is on housed on Wikimedia Foundation's domain.  

Best,
Heather.



_______________________________________________
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: this month's research newsletter

Han-Teng Liao (OII)-2
Heather, I am not sure who contribute that. Probably not Nemo. If this issue of newsletter is correctly attributed, the contributors include: Taha Yasseri, Maximilian Klein, Piotr Konieczny, Kim Osman, and Tilman Bayer. My suggestion is only a personal one, and I am not sure if it is against policies to make a few edits once the newsletter is out. 

Thanks again to the contributors of the newsletter, my life is a bit easier and more interesting because of your work.



2014-07-02 15:35 GMT+07:00 Heather Ford <[hidden email]>:
+1 Thanks for your really thoughtful comments, Joe, Han-Teng. 

Nemo, would you be willing to add a note to the review and/or contacting the researcher?

Best,
Heather.
On 2 July 2014 05:17, h <[hidden email]> wrote:
The tone of the sentence in question 

    'it is disappointing that the main purpose appears to be completing a thesis, with little thought to actually improving Wikipedia'

could have been written as 
  
    'It would be more useful for the Wikipedia community of practice if the author discussed or even spelled out the implications of the research for improving Wikipedia".

    This suggestion is based on my own impression that [Wiki-research-l] has mainly two groups of readers: community of practice and community of knowledge. It is okay to have some group tensions for creative/critical inputs. Still, a neutral tone is better for assessment, and an encouraging tone might work a bit better to encourage others to fill the *gaps* (both practice and knowledge ones). 

    Also, the factors such as originally intended audience and word limits may determine how much a writer can do for *due weight* (similar to [[WP:due]]). If the original (academic) author failed to address the implications for practices satisfactory, a research newsletter contributor can point out what s/he thinks the potential/actual implications are. (My thanks to the research newsletter's voluntary contributors for their unpaid work!)

    While I understand that the monthly research newsletter has its own perspective and interests different from academic newsletters, it does not sacrifice the integrity of the newsletter to be gentle and specific. I would recommend a minor edit to the sentence as the the newsletter could be read by any one in the world, not just the Wikipedians. It is public/published for all readers, and thus please do not assume the readers know the context of Wikipedia research. 
     
Best,

han-teng liao


2014-07-01 19:37 GMT+07:00 Heather Ford <[hidden email]>:
Thanks so much for the newsletter [1]! Always a great read...

But have to just say that comments like this: 'it is disappointing that the main purpose appears to be completing a thesis, with little thought to actually improving Wikipedia' [2] are really harsh and a little unfair. The student is studying Wikipedia - they can hardly only be interested in completing their thesis. We need to remember that researchers are at very different stages of their careers, they have very different motivations, and different levels of engagement with the Wikipedia community, but that *all* research on Wikipedia contributes to our understanding (even if as a catalyst for improvements). We want to encourage more research on Wikipedia, not attack the motivations of people we know little about - particularly when they're just students and particularly when this newsletter is on housed on Wikimedia Foundation's domain.  

Best,
Heather.



_______________________________________________
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: this month's research newsletter

Heather Ford-3
Apologies. You're right, Han-Teng. The reviewer looks to be Piotr Konieczny who I think is on this mailing list? 



On 2 July 2014 12:58, h <[hidden email]> wrote:
Heather, I am not sure who contribute that. Probably not Nemo. If this issue of newsletter is correctly attributed, the contributors include: Taha Yasseri, Maximilian Klein, Piotr Konieczny, Kim Osman, and Tilman Bayer. My suggestion is only a personal one, and I am not sure if it is against policies to make a few edits once the newsletter is out. 

Thanks again to the contributors of the newsletter, my life is a bit easier and more interesting because of your work.



2014-07-02 15:35 GMT+07:00 Heather Ford <[hidden email]>:

+1 Thanks for your really thoughtful comments, Joe, Han-Teng. 

Nemo, would you be willing to add a note to the review and/or contacting the researcher?

Best,
Heather.
On 2 July 2014 05:17, h <[hidden email]> wrote:
The tone of the sentence in question 

    'it is disappointing that the main purpose appears to be completing a thesis, with little thought to actually improving Wikipedia'

could have been written as 
  
    'It would be more useful for the Wikipedia community of practice if the author discussed or even spelled out the implications of the research for improving Wikipedia".

    This suggestion is based on my own impression that [Wiki-research-l] has mainly two groups of readers: community of practice and community of knowledge. It is okay to have some group tensions for creative/critical inputs. Still, a neutral tone is better for assessment, and an encouraging tone might work a bit better to encourage others to fill the *gaps* (both practice and knowledge ones). 

    Also, the factors such as originally intended audience and word limits may determine how much a writer can do for *due weight* (similar to [[WP:due]]). If the original (academic) author failed to address the implications for practices satisfactory, a research newsletter contributor can point out what s/he thinks the potential/actual implications are. (My thanks to the research newsletter's voluntary contributors for their unpaid work!)

    While I understand that the monthly research newsletter has its own perspective and interests different from academic newsletters, it does not sacrifice the integrity of the newsletter to be gentle and specific. I would recommend a minor edit to the sentence as the the newsletter could be read by any one in the world, not just the Wikipedians. It is public/published for all readers, and thus please do not assume the readers know the context of Wikipedia research. 
     
Best,

han-teng liao


2014-07-01 19:37 GMT+07:00 Heather Ford <[hidden email]>:
Thanks so much for the newsletter [1]! Always a great read...

But have to just say that comments like this: 'it is disappointing that the main purpose appears to be completing a thesis, with little thought to actually improving Wikipedia' [2] are really harsh and a little unfair. The student is studying Wikipedia - they can hardly only be interested in completing their thesis. We need to remember that researchers are at very different stages of their careers, they have very different motivations, and different levels of engagement with the Wikipedia community, but that *all* research on Wikipedia contributes to our understanding (even if as a catalyst for improvements). We want to encourage more research on Wikipedia, not attack the motivations of people we know little about - particularly when they're just students and particularly when this newsletter is on housed on Wikimedia Foundation's domain.  

Best,
Heather.



_______________________________________________
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



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

wikis vs. CSCW

fn

Can I ask a silly question: Is wiki research (including Wikipedia
research) research on computer-supported collaborative work (CSCW).

My immediate thought was: yes of course. I do note that on Wikipedia
there is only a parenthetic mentioning of Wikipedia in
"Computer-supported cooperative work" and no mentioning of CSCW in
"Wiki" (but I have also heard that you shouldn't trust Wikipedia because
anyone can edit).

I suppose that some wiki research could be non-CSCW research? E.g.,
research on named entity extraction using Wikipedia would not be called
CSCW.


best regards
Finn Årup Nielsen
http://www.compute.dtu.dk/~faan/

_______________________________________________
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: this month's research newsletter

Aaron Halfaker-2
In reply to this post by Heather Ford-3
Given that it seems we agree with Poitr's desire for research about Wikipedia to lead to useful tools an insights that can be directly applied to making Wikipedia and other wikis better, what might be a more effective strategy for encouraging researchers to engage with us or at least release their work in forms that we can more easily work with?

Here's a couple of half-baked ideas:
  • Wiki research impact task force -- contacts authors to encourage them to release code/datasets/etc. and praise them publicly when they do -- could be part of the work of newsletter reviewers.  There are many researchers on this list who work directly with Wikimedians to make sure that their research has direct impact and their awesomeness is worth our appreciation and public recognition.
  • Yearly research award -- for the most directly impactful research projects/researchers similar to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_France_Research_Award.  One of the focuses of the judging could be the direct impact that the work has had.
-Aaron


On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Heather Ford <[hidden email]> wrote:
Apologies. You're right, Han-Teng. The reviewer looks to be Piotr Konieczny who I think is on this mailing list? 
On 2 July 2014 12:58, h <[hidden email]> wrote:
Heather, I am not sure who contribute that. Probably not Nemo. If this issue of newsletter is correctly attributed, the contributors include: Taha Yasseri, Maximilian Klein, Piotr Konieczny, Kim Osman, and Tilman Bayer. My suggestion is only a personal one, and I am not sure if it is against policies to make a few edits once the newsletter is out. 

Thanks again to the contributors of the newsletter, my life is a bit easier and more interesting because of your work.



2014-07-02 15:35 GMT+07:00 Heather Ford <[hidden email]>:

+1 Thanks for your really thoughtful comments, Joe, Han-Teng. 

Nemo, would you be willing to add a note to the review and/or contacting the researcher?

Best,
Heather.
On 2 July 2014 05:17, h <[hidden email]> wrote:
The tone of the sentence in question 

    'it is disappointing that the main purpose appears to be completing a thesis, with little thought to actually improving Wikipedia'

could have been written as 
  
    'It would be more useful for the Wikipedia community of practice if the author discussed or even spelled out the implications of the research for improving Wikipedia".

    This suggestion is based on my own impression that [Wiki-research-l] has mainly two groups of readers: community of practice and community of knowledge. It is okay to have some group tensions for creative/critical inputs. Still, a neutral tone is better for assessment, and an encouraging tone might work a bit better to encourage others to fill the *gaps* (both practice and knowledge ones). 

    Also, the factors such as originally intended audience and word limits may determine how much a writer can do for *due weight* (similar to [[WP:due]]). If the original (academic) author failed to address the implications for practices satisfactory, a research newsletter contributor can point out what s/he thinks the potential/actual implications are. (My thanks to the research newsletter's voluntary contributors for their unpaid work!)

    While I understand that the monthly research newsletter has its own perspective and interests different from academic newsletters, it does not sacrifice the integrity of the newsletter to be gentle and specific. I would recommend a minor edit to the sentence as the the newsletter could be read by any one in the world, not just the Wikipedians. It is public/published for all readers, and thus please do not assume the readers know the context of Wikipedia research. 
     
Best,

han-teng liao


2014-07-01 19:37 GMT+07:00 Heather Ford <[hidden email]>:
Thanks so much for the newsletter [1]! Always a great read...

But have to just say that comments like this: 'it is disappointing that the main purpose appears to be completing a thesis, with little thought to actually improving Wikipedia' [2] are really harsh and a little unfair. The student is studying Wikipedia - they can hardly only be interested in completing their thesis. We need to remember that researchers are at very different stages of their careers, they have very different motivations, and different levels of engagement with the Wikipedia community, but that *all* research on Wikipedia contributes to our understanding (even if as a catalyst for improvements). We want to encourage more research on Wikipedia, not attack the motivations of people we know little about - particularly when they're just students and particularly when this newsletter is on housed on Wikimedia Foundation's domain.  

Best,
Heather.



_______________________________________________
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



_______________________________________________
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: this month's research newsletter

Oliver Keyes-4
I really like the idea of some kind of annual award.


On 2 July 2014 10:15, Aaron Halfaker <[hidden email]> wrote:
Given that it seems we agree with Poitr's desire for research about Wikipedia to lead to useful tools an insights that can be directly applied to making Wikipedia and other wikis better, what might be a more effective strategy for encouraging researchers to engage with us or at least release their work in forms that we can more easily work with?

Here's a couple of half-baked ideas:
  • Wiki research impact task force -- contacts authors to encourage them to release code/datasets/etc. and praise them publicly when they do -- could be part of the work of newsletter reviewers.  There are many researchers on this list who work directly with Wikimedians to make sure that their research has direct impact and their awesomeness is worth our appreciation and public recognition.
  • Yearly research award -- for the most directly impactful research projects/researchers similar to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_France_Research_Award.  One of the focuses of the judging could be the direct impact that the work has had.
-Aaron


On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Heather Ford <[hidden email]> wrote:
Apologies. You're right, Han-Teng. The reviewer looks to be Piotr Konieczny who I think is on this mailing list? 
On 2 July 2014 12:58, h <[hidden email]> wrote:
Heather, I am not sure who contribute that. Probably not Nemo. If this issue of newsletter is correctly attributed, the contributors include: Taha Yasseri, Maximilian Klein, Piotr Konieczny, Kim Osman, and Tilman Bayer. My suggestion is only a personal one, and I am not sure if it is against policies to make a few edits once the newsletter is out. 

Thanks again to the contributors of the newsletter, my life is a bit easier and more interesting because of your work.



2014-07-02 15:35 GMT+07:00 Heather Ford <[hidden email]>:

+1 Thanks for your really thoughtful comments, Joe, Han-Teng. 

Nemo, would you be willing to add a note to the review and/or contacting the researcher?

Best,
Heather.
On 2 July 2014 05:17, h <[hidden email]> wrote:
The tone of the sentence in question 

    'it is disappointing that the main purpose appears to be completing a thesis, with little thought to actually improving Wikipedia'

could have been written as 
  
    'It would be more useful for the Wikipedia community of practice if the author discussed or even spelled out the implications of the research for improving Wikipedia".

    This suggestion is based on my own impression that [Wiki-research-l] has mainly two groups of readers: community of practice and community of knowledge. It is okay to have some group tensions for creative/critical inputs. Still, a neutral tone is better for assessment, and an encouraging tone might work a bit better to encourage others to fill the *gaps* (both practice and knowledge ones). 

    Also, the factors such as originally intended audience and word limits may determine how much a writer can do for *due weight* (similar to [[WP:due]]). If the original (academic) author failed to address the implications for practices satisfactory, a research newsletter contributor can point out what s/he thinks the potential/actual implications are. (My thanks to the research newsletter's voluntary contributors for their unpaid work!)

    While I understand that the monthly research newsletter has its own perspective and interests different from academic newsletters, it does not sacrifice the integrity of the newsletter to be gentle and specific. I would recommend a minor edit to the sentence as the the newsletter could be read by any one in the world, not just the Wikipedians. It is public/published for all readers, and thus please do not assume the readers know the context of Wikipedia research. 
     
Best,

han-teng liao


2014-07-01 19:37 GMT+07:00 Heather Ford <[hidden email]>:
Thanks so much for the newsletter [1]! Always a great read...

But have to just say that comments like this: 'it is disappointing that the main purpose appears to be completing a thesis, with little thought to actually improving Wikipedia' [2] are really harsh and a little unfair. The student is studying Wikipedia - they can hardly only be interested in completing their thesis. We need to remember that researchers are at very different stages of their careers, they have very different motivations, and different levels of engagement with the Wikipedia community, but that *all* research on Wikipedia contributes to our understanding (even if as a catalyst for improvements). We want to encourage more research on Wikipedia, not attack the motivations of people we know little about - particularly when they're just students and particularly when this newsletter is on housed on Wikimedia Foundation's domain.  

Best,
Heather.



_______________________________________________
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



_______________________________________________
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




--
Oliver Keyes
Research Analyst
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: this month's research newsletter

Edward Saperia-3

I really like the idea of some kind of annual award.

If someone puts it together before Wikimania, I can put it into the closing ceremony?

Edward Saperia
Conference Director Wikimania London
[hidden email]  facebook  twitter  07796955572
133-135 Bethnal Green Road, E2 7DG

 
On 2 July 2014 10:15, Aaron Halfaker <[hidden email]> wrote:
Given that it seems we agree with Poitr's desire for research about Wikipedia to lead to useful tools an insights that can be directly applied to making Wikipedia and other wikis better, what might be a more effective strategy for encouraging researchers to engage with us or at least release their work in forms that we can more easily work with?

Here's a couple of half-baked ideas:
  • Wiki research impact task force -- contacts authors to encourage them to release code/datasets/etc. and praise them publicly when they do -- could be part of the work of newsletter reviewers.  There are many researchers on this list who work directly with Wikimedians to make sure that their research has direct impact and their awesomeness is worth our appreciation and public recognition.
  • Yearly research award -- for the most directly impactful research projects/researchers similar to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_France_Research_Award.  One of the focuses of the judging could be the direct impact that the work has had.
-Aaron


On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Heather Ford <[hidden email]> wrote:
Apologies. You're right, Han-Teng. The reviewer looks to be Piotr Konieczny who I think is on this mailing list? 
On 2 July 2014 12:58, h <[hidden email]> wrote:
Heather, I am not sure who contribute that. Probably not Nemo. If this issue of newsletter is correctly attributed, the contributors include: Taha Yasseri, Maximilian Klein, Piotr Konieczny, Kim Osman, and Tilman Bayer. My suggestion is only a personal one, and I am not sure if it is against policies to make a few edits once the newsletter is out. 

Thanks again to the contributors of the newsletter, my life is a bit easier and more interesting because of your work.



2014-07-02 15:35 GMT+07:00 Heather Ford <[hidden email]>:

+1 Thanks for your really thoughtful comments, Joe, Han-Teng. 

Nemo, would you be willing to add a note to the review and/or contacting the researcher?

Best,
Heather.
On 2 July 2014 05:17, h <[hidden email]> wrote:
The tone of the sentence in question 

    'it is disappointing that the main purpose appears to be completing a thesis, with little thought to actually improving Wikipedia'

could have been written as 
  
    'It would be more useful for the Wikipedia community of practice if the author discussed or even spelled out the implications of the research for improving Wikipedia".

    This suggestion is based on my own impression that [Wiki-research-l] has mainly two groups of readers: community of practice and community of knowledge. It is okay to have some group tensions for creative/critical inputs. Still, a neutral tone is better for assessment, and an encouraging tone might work a bit better to encourage others to fill the *gaps* (both practice and knowledge ones). 

    Also, the factors such as originally intended audience and word limits may determine how much a writer can do for *due weight* (similar to [[WP:due]]). If the original (academic) author failed to address the implications for practices satisfactory, a research newsletter contributor can point out what s/he thinks the potential/actual implications are. (My thanks to the research newsletter's voluntary contributors for their unpaid work!)

    While I understand that the monthly research newsletter has its own perspective and interests different from academic newsletters, it does not sacrifice the integrity of the newsletter to be gentle and specific. I would recommend a minor edit to the sentence as the the newsletter could be read by any one in the world, not just the Wikipedians. It is public/published for all readers, and thus please do not assume the readers know the context of Wikipedia research. 
     
Best,

han-teng liao


2014-07-01 19:37 GMT+07:00 Heather Ford <[hidden email]>:
Thanks so much for the newsletter [1]! Always a great read...

But have to just say that comments like this: 'it is disappointing that the main purpose appears to be completing a thesis, with little thought to actually improving Wikipedia' [2] are really harsh and a little unfair. The student is studying Wikipedia - they can hardly only be interested in completing their thesis. We need to remember that researchers are at very different stages of their careers, they have very different motivations, and different levels of engagement with the Wikipedia community, but that *all* research on Wikipedia contributes to our understanding (even if as a catalyst for improvements). We want to encourage more research on Wikipedia, not attack the motivations of people we know little about - particularly when they're just students and particularly when this newsletter is on housed on Wikimedia Foundation's domain.  

Best,
Heather.



_______________________________________________
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



_______________________________________________
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




--
Oliver Keyes
Research Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation

_______________________________________________
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: this month's research newsletter

Oliver Keyes-4
I feel like that might be a bit short-notice - papers need to be submitted, reviewed or voted on, so on and so forth. But it could be lovely to have a 'best presentation' award for WM itself!


On 2 July 2014 10:33, Edward Saperia <[hidden email]> wrote:

I really like the idea of some kind of annual award.

If someone puts it together before Wikimania, I can put it into the closing ceremony?

Edward Saperia
Conference Director Wikimania London
[hidden email]  facebook  twitter  07796955572
133-135 Bethnal Green Road, E2 7DG

 
On 2 July 2014 10:15, Aaron Halfaker <[hidden email]> wrote:
Given that it seems we agree with Poitr's desire for research about Wikipedia to lead to useful tools an insights that can be directly applied to making Wikipedia and other wikis better, what might be a more effective strategy for encouraging researchers to engage with us or at least release their work in forms that we can more easily work with?

Here's a couple of half-baked ideas:
  • Wiki research impact task force -- contacts authors to encourage them to release code/datasets/etc. and praise them publicly when they do -- could be part of the work of newsletter reviewers.  There are many researchers on this list who work directly with Wikimedians to make sure that their research has direct impact and their awesomeness is worth our appreciation and public recognition.
  • Yearly research award -- for the most directly impactful research projects/researchers similar to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_France_Research_Award.  One of the focuses of the judging could be the direct impact that the work has had.
-Aaron


On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Heather Ford <[hidden email]> wrote:
Apologies. You're right, Han-Teng. The reviewer looks to be Piotr Konieczny who I think is on this mailing list? 
On 2 July 2014 12:58, h <[hidden email]> wrote:
Heather, I am not sure who contribute that. Probably not Nemo. If this issue of newsletter is correctly attributed, the contributors include: Taha Yasseri, Maximilian Klein, Piotr Konieczny, Kim Osman, and Tilman Bayer. My suggestion is only a personal one, and I am not sure if it is against policies to make a few edits once the newsletter is out. 

Thanks again to the contributors of the newsletter, my life is a bit easier and more interesting because of your work.



2014-07-02 15:35 GMT+07:00 Heather Ford <[hidden email]>:

+1 Thanks for your really thoughtful comments, Joe, Han-Teng. 

Nemo, would you be willing to add a note to the review and/or contacting the researcher?

Best,
Heather.
On 2 July 2014 05:17, h <[hidden email]> wrote:
The tone of the sentence in question 

    'it is disappointing that the main purpose appears to be completing a thesis, with little thought to actually improving Wikipedia'

could have been written as 
  
    'It would be more useful for the Wikipedia community of practice if the author discussed or even spelled out the implications of the research for improving Wikipedia".

    This suggestion is based on my own impression that [Wiki-research-l] has mainly two groups of readers: community of practice and community of knowledge. It is okay to have some group tensions for creative/critical inputs. Still, a neutral tone is better for assessment, and an encouraging tone might work a bit better to encourage others to fill the *gaps* (both practice and knowledge ones). 

    Also, the factors such as originally intended audience and word limits may determine how much a writer can do for *due weight* (similar to [[WP:due]]). If the original (academic) author failed to address the implications for practices satisfactory, a research newsletter contributor can point out what s/he thinks the potential/actual implications are. (My thanks to the research newsletter's voluntary contributors for their unpaid work!)

    While I understand that the monthly research newsletter has its own perspective and interests different from academic newsletters, it does not sacrifice the integrity of the newsletter to be gentle and specific. I would recommend a minor edit to the sentence as the the newsletter could be read by any one in the world, not just the Wikipedians. It is public/published for all readers, and thus please do not assume the readers know the context of Wikipedia research. 
     
Best,

han-teng liao


2014-07-01 19:37 GMT+07:00 Heather Ford <[hidden email]>:
Thanks so much for the newsletter [1]! Always a great read...

But have to just say that comments like this: 'it is disappointing that the main purpose appears to be completing a thesis, with little thought to actually improving Wikipedia' [2] are really harsh and a little unfair. The student is studying Wikipedia - they can hardly only be interested in completing their thesis. We need to remember that researchers are at very different stages of their careers, they have very different motivations, and different levels of engagement with the Wikipedia community, but that *all* research on Wikipedia contributes to our understanding (even if as a catalyst for improvements). We want to encourage more research on Wikipedia, not attack the motivations of people we know little about - particularly when they're just students and particularly when this newsletter is on housed on Wikimedia Foundation's domain.  

Best,
Heather.



_______________________________________________
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



_______________________________________________
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




--
Oliver Keyes
Research Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation

_______________________________________________
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




--
Oliver Keyes
Research Analyst
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: this month's research newsletter

Edward Saperia-3

On 2 July 2014 15:37, Oliver Keyes <[hidden email]> wrote:
I feel like that might be a bit short-notice - papers need to be submitted, reviewed or voted on, so on and so forth. But it could be lovely to have a 'best presentation' award for WM itself!

Well, we could pick from things featured in the research newsletter, for example? How do you imagine the winner to be chosen? We can always do something more structured for next year. But this might be a good way to launch the idea of a research award.
 
Ed
 
On 2 July 2014 10:33, Edward Saperia <[hidden email]> wrote:

I really like the idea of some kind of annual award.

If someone puts it together before Wikimania, I can put it into the closing ceremony?

Edward Saperia
Conference Director Wikimania London
[hidden email]  facebook  twitter  <a href="tel:07796955572" value="+447796955572" target="_blank">07796955572
133-135 Bethnal Green Road, E2 7DG

 
On 2 July 2014 10:15, Aaron Halfaker <[hidden email]> wrote:
Given that it seems we agree with Poitr's desire for research about Wikipedia to lead to useful tools an insights that can be directly applied to making Wikipedia and other wikis better, what might be a more effective strategy for encouraging researchers to engage with us or at least release their work in forms that we can more easily work with?

Here's a couple of half-baked ideas:
  • Wiki research impact task force -- contacts authors to encourage them to release code/datasets/etc. and praise them publicly when they do -- could be part of the work of newsletter reviewers.  There are many researchers on this list who work directly with Wikimedians to make sure that their research has direct impact and their awesomeness is worth our appreciation and public recognition.
  • Yearly research award -- for the most directly impactful research projects/researchers similar to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_France_Research_Award.  One of the focuses of the judging could be the direct impact that the work has had.
-Aaron


On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Heather Ford <[hidden email]> wrote:
Apologies. You're right, Han-Teng. The reviewer looks to be Piotr Konieczny who I think is on this mailing list? 
On 2 July 2014 12:58, h <[hidden email]> wrote:
Heather, I am not sure who contribute that. Probably not Nemo. If this issue of newsletter is correctly attributed, the contributors include: Taha Yasseri, Maximilian Klein, Piotr Konieczny, Kim Osman, and Tilman Bayer. My suggestion is only a personal one, and I am not sure if it is against policies to make a few edits once the newsletter is out. 

Thanks again to the contributors of the newsletter, my life is a bit easier and more interesting because of your work.



2014-07-02 15:35 GMT+07:00 Heather Ford <[hidden email]>:

+1 Thanks for your really thoughtful comments, Joe, Han-Teng. 

Nemo, would you be willing to add a note to the review and/or contacting the researcher?

Best,
Heather.
On 2 July 2014 05:17, h <[hidden email]> wrote:
The tone of the sentence in question 

    'it is disappointing that the main purpose appears to be completing a thesis, with little thought to actually improving Wikipedia'

could have been written as 
  
    'It would be more useful for the Wikipedia community of practice if the author discussed or even spelled out the implications of the research for improving Wikipedia".

    This suggestion is based on my own impression that [Wiki-research-l] has mainly two groups of readers: community of practice and community of knowledge. It is okay to have some group tensions for creative/critical inputs. Still, a neutral tone is better for assessment, and an encouraging tone might work a bit better to encourage others to fill the *gaps* (both practice and knowledge ones). 

    Also, the factors such as originally intended audience and word limits may determine how much a writer can do for *due weight* (similar to [[WP:due]]). If the original (academic) author failed to address the implications for practices satisfactory, a research newsletter contributor can point out what s/he thinks the potential/actual implications are. (My thanks to the research newsletter's voluntary contributors for their unpaid work!)

    While I understand that the monthly research newsletter has its own perspective and interests different from academic newsletters, it does not sacrifice the integrity of the newsletter to be gentle and specific. I would recommend a minor edit to the sentence as the the newsletter could be read by any one in the world, not just the Wikipedians. It is public/published for all readers, and thus please do not assume the readers know the context of Wikipedia research. 
     
Best,

han-teng liao


2014-07-01 19:37 GMT+07:00 Heather Ford <[hidden email]>:
Thanks so much for the newsletter [1]! Always a great read...

But have to just say that comments like this: 'it is disappointing that the main purpose appears to be completing a thesis, with little thought to actually improving Wikipedia' [2] are really harsh and a little unfair. The student is studying Wikipedia - they can hardly only be interested in completing their thesis. We need to remember that researchers are at very different stages of their careers, they have very different motivations, and different levels of engagement with the Wikipedia community, but that *all* research on Wikipedia contributes to our understanding (even if as a catalyst for improvements). We want to encourage more research on Wikipedia, not attack the motivations of people we know little about - particularly when they're just students and particularly when this newsletter is on housed on Wikimedia Foundation's domain.  

Best,
Heather.



_______________________________________________
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



_______________________________________________
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




--
Oliver Keyes
Research Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation

_______________________________________________
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




--
Oliver Keyes
Research Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation

_______________________________________________
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: wikis vs. CSCW

Aaron Halfaker-3
In reply to this post by fn
Is wiki research (including Wikipedia research) research on computer-supported collaborative work (CSCW).

Sure.  A lot of it.  If it's research of the nature of wikis, then certainly.   A lot of papers that study Wikipedia/wikis are published via ACM CSCW[1].

If it's research that just so happens to use Wikipedia as a dataset, then I don't know if we should even call it Wikipedia research.  Some research of the content and work patterns in Wikipedia is a mixture of the two.  For example, an analysis of the content in Wikipedia might be useful for identifying bias and missing information -- even if that was not original intention of the study and identifying bias and missing information is purely used to tune some content algorithm.



On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Finn Årup Nielsen <[hidden email]> wrote:

Can I ask a silly question: Is wiki research (including Wikipedia research) research on computer-supported collaborative work (CSCW).

My immediate thought was: yes of course. I do note that on Wikipedia there is only a parenthetic mentioning of Wikipedia in "Computer-supported cooperative work" and no mentioning of CSCW in "Wiki" (but I have also heard that you shouldn't trust Wikipedia because anyone can edit).

I suppose that some wiki research could be non-CSCW research? E.g., research on named entity extraction using Wikipedia would not be called CSCW.


best regards
Finn Årup Nielsen
http://www.compute.dtu.dk/~faan/

_______________________________________________
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: this month's research newsletter

Han-Teng Liao (OII)-2
In reply to this post by Aaron Halfaker-2
I second Aaron's two suggestions, with a slight change of wordings of the first:
(1) change "impact" to "public engagement" (potentially new users)  or "community engagement" (existing users)

han-teng liao


2014-07-02 21:15 GMT+07:00 Aaron Halfaker <[hidden email]>:
Given that it seems we agree with Poitr's desire for research about Wikipedia to lead to useful tools an insights that can be directly applied to making Wikipedia and other wikis better, what might be a more effective strategy for encouraging researchers to engage with us or at least release their work in forms that we can more easily work with?

Here's a couple of half-baked ideas:
  • Wiki research impact task force -- contacts authors to encourage them to release code/datasets/etc. and praise them publicly when they do -- could be part of the work of newsletter reviewers.  There are many researchers on this list who work directly with Wikimedians to make sure that their research has direct impact and their awesomeness is worth our appreciation and public recognition.
  • Yearly research award -- for the most directly impactful research projects/researchers similar to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_France_Research_Award.  One of the focuses of the judging could be the direct impact that the work has had.
-Aaron


On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Heather Ford <[hidden email]> wrote:
Apologies. You're right, Han-Teng. The reviewer looks to be Piotr Konieczny who I think is on this mailing list? 
On 2 July 2014 12:58, h <[hidden email]> wrote:
Heather, I am not sure who contribute that. Probably not Nemo. If this issue of newsletter is correctly attributed, the contributors include: Taha Yasseri, Maximilian Klein, Piotr Konieczny, Kim Osman, and Tilman Bayer. My suggestion is only a personal one, and I am not sure if it is against policies to make a few edits once the newsletter is out. 

Thanks again to the contributors of the newsletter, my life is a bit easier and more interesting because of your work.



2014-07-02 15:35 GMT+07:00 Heather Ford <[hidden email]>:

+1 Thanks for your really thoughtful comments, Joe, Han-Teng. 

Nemo, would you be willing to add a note to the review and/or contacting the researcher?

Best,
Heather.
On 2 July 2014 05:17, h <[hidden email]> wrote:
The tone of the sentence in question 

    'it is disappointing that the main purpose appears to be completing a thesis, with little thought to actually improving Wikipedia'

could have been written as 
  
    'It would be more useful for the Wikipedia community of practice if the author discussed or even spelled out the implications of the research for improving Wikipedia".

    This suggestion is based on my own impression that [Wiki-research-l] has mainly two groups of readers: community of practice and community of knowledge. It is okay to have some group tensions for creative/critical inputs. Still, a neutral tone is better for assessment, and an encouraging tone might work a bit better to encourage others to fill the *gaps* (both practice and knowledge ones). 

    Also, the factors such as originally intended audience and word limits may determine how much a writer can do for *due weight* (similar to [[WP:due]]). If the original (academic) author failed to address the implications for practices satisfactory, a research newsletter contributor can point out what s/he thinks the potential/actual implications are. (My thanks to the research newsletter's voluntary contributors for their unpaid work!)

    While I understand that the monthly research newsletter has its own perspective and interests different from academic newsletters, it does not sacrifice the integrity of the newsletter to be gentle and specific. I would recommend a minor edit to the sentence as the the newsletter could be read by any one in the world, not just the Wikipedians. It is public/published for all readers, and thus please do not assume the readers know the context of Wikipedia research. 
     
Best,

han-teng liao


2014-07-01 19:37 GMT+07:00 Heather Ford <[hidden email]>:
Thanks so much for the newsletter [1]! Always a great read...

But have to just say that comments like this: 'it is disappointing that the main purpose appears to be completing a thesis, with little thought to actually improving Wikipedia' [2] are really harsh and a little unfair. The student is studying Wikipedia - they can hardly only be interested in completing their thesis. We need to remember that researchers are at very different stages of their careers, they have very different motivations, and different levels of engagement with the Wikipedia community, but that *all* research on Wikipedia contributes to our understanding (even if as a catalyst for improvements). We want to encourage more research on Wikipedia, not attack the motivations of people we know little about - particularly when they're just students and particularly when this newsletter is on housed on Wikimedia Foundation's domain.  

Best,
Heather.



_______________________________________________
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



_______________________________________________
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: wikis vs. CSCW

Carlos Castillo
In reply to this post by fn
Hi,

I will go as far as saying that Wikipedia research actually changed the
nature of the CSCW field and the CSCW conference. A few years ago an
avalanche of Wiki-related papers arrived to the CSCW conference, which
(in my opinion as a semi-outsider to that community) added social media
as a major element. Indeed in recent years the conference changed name
and now is "Computer-Supported Collaborative Work and Social Computing".

Cheers,

--
ChaTo (Carlos Castillo)
http://chato.cl/ - https://linkedin.com/in/chato -
https://twitter.com/chatox

On Wed, Jul 2, 2014, at 07:15 AM, Finn Årup Nielsen wrote:

>
> Can I ask a silly question: Is wiki research (including Wikipedia
> research) research on computer-supported collaborative work (CSCW).
>
> My immediate thought was: yes of course. I do note that on Wikipedia
> there is only a parenthetic mentioning of Wikipedia in
> "Computer-supported cooperative work" and no mentioning of CSCW in
> "Wiki" (but I have also heard that you shouldn't trust Wikipedia because
> anyone can edit).
>
> I suppose that some wiki research could be non-CSCW research? E.g.,
> research on named entity extraction using Wikipedia would not be called
> CSCW.
>
>
> best regards
> Finn Årup Nielsen
> http://www.compute.dtu.dk/~faan/
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: this month's research newsletter

Aaron Halfaker-3
In reply to this post by Han-Teng Liao (OII)-2
Han-teng,

Could you expand on what you are imagining with these two aspects of impact?  Also, I'd like to think that impact wouldn't be so narrow as to be based on engagement only.  Surely, researchers can produce things that are highly impactful without explicitly "engaging" with the volunteer community. 

-Aaron


On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:32 AM, h <[hidden email]> wrote:
I second Aaron's two suggestions, with a slight change of wordings of the first:
(1) change "impact" to "public engagement" (potentially new users)  or "community engagement" (existing users)

han-teng liao


2014-07-02 21:15 GMT+07:00 Aaron Halfaker <[hidden email]>:

Given that it seems we agree with Poitr's desire for research about Wikipedia to lead to useful tools an insights that can be directly applied to making Wikipedia and other wikis better, what might be a more effective strategy for encouraging researchers to engage with us or at least release their work in forms that we can more easily work with?

Here's a couple of half-baked ideas:
  • Wiki research impact task force -- contacts authors to encourage them to release code/datasets/etc. and praise them publicly when they do -- could be part of the work of newsletter reviewers.  There are many researchers on this list who work directly with Wikimedians to make sure that their research has direct impact and their awesomeness is worth our appreciation and public recognition.
  • Yearly research award -- for the most directly impactful research projects/researchers similar to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_France_Research_Award.  One of the focuses of the judging could be the direct impact that the work has had.
-Aaron


On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Heather Ford <[hidden email]> wrote:
Apologies. You're right, Han-Teng. The reviewer looks to be Piotr Konieczny who I think is on this mailing list? 
On 2 July 2014 12:58, h <[hidden email]> wrote:
Heather, I am not sure who contribute that. Probably not Nemo. If this issue of newsletter is correctly attributed, the contributors include: Taha Yasseri, Maximilian Klein, Piotr Konieczny, Kim Osman, and Tilman Bayer. My suggestion is only a personal one, and I am not sure if it is against policies to make a few edits once the newsletter is out. 

Thanks again to the contributors of the newsletter, my life is a bit easier and more interesting because of your work.



2014-07-02 15:35 GMT+07:00 Heather Ford <[hidden email]>:

+1 Thanks for your really thoughtful comments, Joe, Han-Teng. 

Nemo, would you be willing to add a note to the review and/or contacting the researcher?

Best,
Heather.
On 2 July 2014 05:17, h <[hidden email]> wrote:
The tone of the sentence in question 

    'it is disappointing that the main purpose appears to be completing a thesis, with little thought to actually improving Wikipedia'

could have been written as 
  
    'It would be more useful for the Wikipedia community of practice if the author discussed or even spelled out the implications of the research for improving Wikipedia".

    This suggestion is based on my own impression that [Wiki-research-l] has mainly two groups of readers: community of practice and community of knowledge. It is okay to have some group tensions for creative/critical inputs. Still, a neutral tone is better for assessment, and an encouraging tone might work a bit better to encourage others to fill the *gaps* (both practice and knowledge ones). 

    Also, the factors such as originally intended audience and word limits may determine how much a writer can do for *due weight* (similar to [[WP:due]]). If the original (academic) author failed to address the implications for practices satisfactory, a research newsletter contributor can point out what s/he thinks the potential/actual implications are. (My thanks to the research newsletter's voluntary contributors for their unpaid work!)

    While I understand that the monthly research newsletter has its own perspective and interests different from academic newsletters, it does not sacrifice the integrity of the newsletter to be gentle and specific. I would recommend a minor edit to the sentence as the the newsletter could be read by any one in the world, not just the Wikipedians. It is public/published for all readers, and thus please do not assume the readers know the context of Wikipedia research. 
     
Best,

han-teng liao


2014-07-01 19:37 GMT+07:00 Heather Ford <[hidden email]>:
Thanks so much for the newsletter [1]! Always a great read...

But have to just say that comments like this: 'it is disappointing that the main purpose appears to be completing a thesis, with little thought to actually improving Wikipedia' [2] are really harsh and a little unfair. The student is studying Wikipedia - they can hardly only be interested in completing their thesis. We need to remember that researchers are at very different stages of their careers, they have very different motivations, and different levels of engagement with the Wikipedia community, but that *all* research on Wikipedia contributes to our understanding (even if as a catalyst for improvements). We want to encourage more research on Wikipedia, not attack the motivations of people we know little about - particularly when they're just students and particularly when this newsletter is on housed on Wikimedia Foundation's domain.  

Best,
Heather.



_______________________________________________
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



_______________________________________________
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: wikis vs. CSCW

Han-Teng Liao (OII)-2
In reply to this post by Carlos Castillo
As computing goes “collaborative and social” [1], the 2012 ACM Computing Classification System (CCS) [2] has made a few modifications that put CSCW under the umbrella called "Collaborative and social computing", along with other social media, blogs, wikis, etc.

Best,
han-teng liao






2014-07-02 22:38 GMT+07:00 Carlos Castillo <[hidden email]>:
Hi,

I will go as far as saying that Wikipedia research actually changed the
nature of the CSCW field and the CSCW conference. A few years ago an
avalanche of Wiki-related papers arrived to the CSCW conference, which
(in my opinion as a semi-outsider to that community) added social media
as a major element. Indeed in recent years the conference changed name
and now is "Computer-Supported Collaborative Work and Social Computing".

Cheers,

--
ChaTo (Carlos Castillo)
http://chato.cl/ - https://linkedin.com/in/chato -
https://twitter.com/chatox

On Wed, Jul 2, 2014, at 07:15 AM, Finn Årup Nielsen wrote:
>
> Can I ask a silly question: Is wiki research (including Wikipedia
> research) research on computer-supported collaborative work (CSCW).
>
> My immediate thought was: yes of course. I do note that on Wikipedia
> there is only a parenthetic mentioning of Wikipedia in
> "Computer-supported cooperative work" and no mentioning of CSCW in
> "Wiki" (but I have also heard that you shouldn't trust Wikipedia because
> anyone can edit).
>
> I suppose that some wiki research could be non-CSCW research? E.g.,
> research on named entity extraction using Wikipedia would not be called
> CSCW.
>
>
> best regards
> Finn Årup Nielsen
> http://www.compute.dtu.dk/~faan/
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: this month's research newsletter

Kerry Raymond
In reply to this post by Aaron Halfaker-2
Having had a work role oversighting many university researchers including PHD and other research students, I think many start out with intentions to engage fully with stakeholders and contribute back into the real world in some way, but it's fair to say that deadline pressures tend to force them to focus their energies into the "academically valued" outcomes, e.g. published papers, theses, etc. This is just as true for Wikipedia-related research as for, say, aquaculture. Of course, some never intended to contribute back, but are solely motivated by climbing the greasy pole of academia.

Because data gathering can be a time-consuming or expensive stumbling block in a research plan, organisations that freely publish detailed data  (as WMF does) are natural magnets to researchers who can use that data to study various phenomena which may have broader relevance than just Wikipedia or where the Wikipedia data serves as a ground truth for other experiments or as proxy for other unavailable data. For example, you can use Wikipedia to study categorisation or named entity extraction without having real interest in Wikipedia itself.

So I think it is for those who are passionate about Wikipedia itself to see how such research findings may be used to improve Wikipedia. As for releasing source code, it has to recognised that software in research projects is often very quick-and-dirty and probably not designed to be integrated into the MediaWiki code base. Effective solutions to Wikipedia issues often require a mix of technology and change to community process/culture (which is often far harder to get right).

This is not to say they we should not encourage researchers to "give back", but I think we do need to understand that the reasons people don't give back aren't always attributable solely to "bad faith".

In additions to suggestions already made re awards, just having a letter of commendation on WMF letterhead acknowledging the research and its potential to improve Wikipedia would be a useful thing especially for junior researchers seeking to establish themselves; this kind of external validation is helpful to their CVs. This could be sent to any researchers whose research was deemed to have merit with different wording for those who made (according to some appropriately-appointed group) greater or lesser contributions to real Wikipedia impact. 

Sent from my iPad

On 3 Jul 2014, at 12:15 am, Aaron Halfaker <[hidden email]> wrote:

Given that it seems we agree with Poitr's desire for research about Wikipedia to lead to useful tools an insights that can be directly applied to making Wikipedia and other wikis better, what might be a more effective strategy for encouraging researchers to engage with us or at least release their work in forms that we can more easily work with?

Here's a couple of half-baked ideas:
  • Wiki research impact task force -- contacts authors to encourage them to release code/datasets/etc. and praise them publicly when they do -- could be part of the work of newsletter reviewers.  There are many researchers on this list who work directly with Wikimedians to make sure that their research has direct impact and their awesomeness is worth our appreciation and public recognition.
  • Yearly research award -- for the most directly impactful research projects/researchers similar to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_France_Research_Award.  One of the focuses of the judging could be the direct impact that the work has had.
-Aaron


On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Heather Ford <[hidden email]> wrote:
Apologies. You're right, Han-Teng. The reviewer looks to be Piotr Konieczny who I think is on this mailing list? 
On 2 July 2014 12:58, h <[hidden email]> wrote:
Heather, I am not sure who contribute that. Probably not Nemo. If this issue of newsletter is correctly attributed, the contributors include: Taha Yasseri, Maximilian Klein, Piotr Konieczny, Kim Osman, and Tilman Bayer. My suggestion is only a personal one, and I am not sure if it is against policies to make a few edits once the newsletter is out. 

Thanks again to the contributors of the newsletter, my life is a bit easier and more interesting because of your work.



2014-07-02 15:35 GMT+07:00 Heather Ford <[hidden email]>:

+1 Thanks for your really thoughtful comments, Joe, Han-Teng. 

Nemo, would you be willing to add a note to the review and/or contacting the researcher?

Best,
Heather.
On 2 July 2014 05:17, h <[hidden email]> wrote:
The tone of the sentence in question 

    'it is disappointing that the main purpose appears to be completing a thesis, with little thought to actually improving Wikipedia'

could have been written as 
  
    'It would be more useful for the Wikipedia community of practice if the author discussed or even spelled out the implications of the research for improving Wikipedia".

    This suggestion is based on my own impression that [Wiki-research-l] has mainly two groups of readers: community of practice and community of knowledge. It is okay to have some group tensions for creative/critical inputs. Still, a neutral tone is better for assessment, and an encouraging tone might work a bit better to encourage others to fill the *gaps* (both practice and knowledge ones). 

    Also, the factors such as originally intended audience and word limits may determine how much a writer can do for *due weight* (similar to [[WP:due]]). If the original (academic) author failed to address the implications for practices satisfactory, a research newsletter contributor can point out what s/he thinks the potential/actual implications are. (My thanks to the research newsletter's voluntary contributors for their unpaid work!)

    While I understand that the monthly research newsletter has its own perspective and interests different from academic newsletters, it does not sacrifice the integrity of the newsletter to be gentle and specific. I would recommend a minor edit to the sentence as the the newsletter could be read by any one in the world, not just the Wikipedians. It is public/published for all readers, and thus please do not assume the readers know the context of Wikipedia research. 
     
Best,

han-teng liao


2014-07-01 19:37 GMT+07:00 Heather Ford <[hidden email]>:
Thanks so much for the newsletter [1]! Always a great read...

But have to just say that comments like this: 'it is disappointing that the main purpose appears to be completing a thesis, with little thought to actually improving Wikipedia' [2] are really harsh and a little unfair. The student is studying Wikipedia - they can hardly only be interested in completing their thesis. We need to remember that researchers are at very different stages of their careers, they have very different motivations, and different levels of engagement with the Wikipedia community, but that *all* research on Wikipedia contributes to our understanding (even if as a catalyst for improvements). We want to encourage more research on Wikipedia, not attack the motivations of people we know little about - particularly when they're just students and particularly when this newsletter is on housed on Wikimedia Foundation's domain.  

Best,
Heather.



_______________________________________________
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



_______________________________________________
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: this month's research newsletter

Heather Ford-3
Thanks so much for this, Kerry. And thanks, Aaron for (as always) great, productive suggestions. 

I think there are two issues that need to be dealt with separately here. The first is about disparaging remarks made about researchers' contributions that kicked off this discussion. One idea that I had when I saw a similar problem earlier this year was to at least have reviewers add their names to reviews so that we are making a clear distinction between the opinion of a single reviewer and the community/organisation as a whole. Some reviewers have added their names to reviews (thank you!) but I think that needs to be a standard for the newsletter. This probably won't solve the problem completely but hopefully reviewers will be more thoughtful about their critique in the future. 

The second is to encourage research about Wikipedia that engages with the Wikimedia community. And yes, I, too, think that awards and acknowledgements are great ideas. I'd say that, when evaluating, engagement is even more important than impact because we want to encourage students and researchers at various stages of their careers (many of whom would not win awards for impact) to engage with the community when working on these projects. Of course, this kind of work is necessarily going to have more impact because Wikimedians themselves are going to be a part of it somehow. For this, I definitely agree with some kind of acknowledgement of research done - beyond, perhaps, just one or two star researchers winning a few awards. This can be done together e.g. awards for best papers in different categories but also acknowledgements for work with the community on particular projects as suggested by Kerry.

Best,
Heather.



On 3 July 2014 02:56, Kerry Raymond <[hidden email]> wrote:
Having had a work role oversighting many university researchers including PHD and other research students, I think many start out with intentions to engage fully with stakeholders and contribute back into the real world in some way, but it's fair to say that deadline pressures tend to force them to focus their energies into the "academically valued" outcomes, e.g. published papers, theses, etc. This is just as true for Wikipedia-related research as for, say, aquaculture. Of course, some never intended to contribute back, but are solely motivated by climbing the greasy pole of academia.

Because data gathering can be a time-consuming or expensive stumbling block in a research plan, organisations that freely publish detailed data  (as WMF does) are natural magnets to researchers who can use that data to study various phenomena which may have broader relevance than just Wikipedia or where the Wikipedia data serves as a ground truth for other experiments or as proxy for other unavailable data. For example, you can use Wikipedia to study categorisation or named entity extraction without having real interest in Wikipedia itself.

So I think it is for those who are passionate about Wikipedia itself to see how such research findings may be used to improve Wikipedia. As for releasing source code, it has to recognised that software in research projects is often very quick-and-dirty and probably not designed to be integrated into the MediaWiki code base. Effective solutions to Wikipedia issues often require a mix of technology and change to community process/culture (which is often far harder to get right).

This is not to say they we should not encourage researchers to "give back", but I think we do need to understand that the reasons people don't give back aren't always attributable solely to "bad faith".

In additions to suggestions already made re awards, just having a letter of commendation on WMF letterhead acknowledging the research and its potential to improve Wikipedia would be a useful thing especially for junior researchers seeking to establish themselves; this kind of external validation is helpful to their CVs. This could be sent to any researchers whose research was deemed to have merit with different wording for those who made (according to some appropriately-appointed group) greater or lesser contributions to real Wikipedia impact. 

Sent from my iPad

On 3 Jul 2014, at 12:15 am, Aaron Halfaker <[hidden email]> wrote:

Given that it seems we agree with Poitr's desire for research about Wikipedia to lead to useful tools an insights that can be directly applied to making Wikipedia and other wikis better, what might be a more effective strategy for encouraging researchers to engage with us or at least release their work in forms that we can more easily work with?

Here's a couple of half-baked ideas:
  • Wiki research impact task force -- contacts authors to encourage them to release code/datasets/etc. and praise them publicly when they do -- could be part of the work of newsletter reviewers.  There are many researchers on this list who work directly with Wikimedians to make sure that their research has direct impact and their awesomeness is worth our appreciation and public recognition.
  • Yearly research award -- for the most directly impactful research projects/researchers similar to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_France_Research_Award.  One of the focuses of the judging could be the direct impact that the work has had.
-Aaron


On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Heather Ford <[hidden email]> wrote:
Apologies. You're right, Han-Teng. The reviewer looks to be Piotr Konieczny who I think is on this mailing list? 
On 2 July 2014 12:58, h <[hidden email]> wrote:
Heather, I am not sure who contribute that. Probably not Nemo. If this issue of newsletter is correctly attributed, the contributors include: Taha Yasseri, Maximilian Klein, Piotr Konieczny, Kim Osman, and Tilman Bayer. My suggestion is only a personal one, and I am not sure if it is against policies to make a few edits once the newsletter is out. 

Thanks again to the contributors of the newsletter, my life is a bit easier and more interesting because of your work.



2014-07-02 15:35 GMT+07:00 Heather Ford <[hidden email]>:

+1 Thanks for your really thoughtful comments, Joe, Han-Teng. 

Nemo, would you be willing to add a note to the review and/or contacting the researcher?

Best,
Heather.
On 2 July 2014 05:17, h <[hidden email]> wrote:
The tone of the sentence in question 

    'it is disappointing that the main purpose appears to be completing a thesis, with little thought to actually improving Wikipedia'

could have been written as 
  
    'It would be more useful for the Wikipedia community of practice if the author discussed or even spelled out the implications of the research for improving Wikipedia".

    This suggestion is based on my own impression that [Wiki-research-l] has mainly two groups of readers: community of practice and community of knowledge. It is okay to have some group tensions for creative/critical inputs. Still, a neutral tone is better for assessment, and an encouraging tone might work a bit better to encourage others to fill the *gaps* (both practice and knowledge ones). 

    Also, the factors such as originally intended audience and word limits may determine how much a writer can do for *due weight* (similar to [[WP:due]]). If the original (academic) author failed to address the implications for practices satisfactory, a research newsletter contributor can point out what s/he thinks the potential/actual implications are. (My thanks to the research newsletter's voluntary contributors for their unpaid work!)

    While I understand that the monthly research newsletter has its own perspective and interests different from academic newsletters, it does not sacrifice the integrity of the newsletter to be gentle and specific. I would recommend a minor edit to the sentence as the the newsletter could be read by any one in the world, not just the Wikipedians. It is public/published for all readers, and thus please do not assume the readers know the context of Wikipedia research. 
     
Best,

han-teng liao


2014-07-01 19:37 GMT+07:00 Heather Ford <[hidden email]>:
Thanks so much for the newsletter [1]! Always a great read...

But have to just say that comments like this: 'it is disappointing that the main purpose appears to be completing a thesis, with little thought to actually improving Wikipedia' [2] are really harsh and a little unfair. The student is studying Wikipedia - they can hardly only be interested in completing their thesis. We need to remember that researchers are at very different stages of their careers, they have very different motivations, and different levels of engagement with the Wikipedia community, but that *all* research on Wikipedia contributes to our understanding (even if as a catalyst for improvements). We want to encourage more research on Wikipedia, not attack the motivations of people we know little about - particularly when they're just students and particularly when this newsletter is on housed on Wikimedia Foundation's domain.  

Best,
Heather.



_______________________________________________
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



_______________________________________________
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
12