Hello all,
as per our earlier discussion, I think we can settle on Skype for now
as a synchronous communication method. We'll use SkypeOut for calling
in folks who have connectivity issues.
I do believe that a first meeting will be very useful as an
ice-breaker, and as a way to actually determine some first action
points that all of us can work on (e.g. "I'm happy to revamp the
Research pages on Meta", "I will draft a policy recommendation for
subject recruitment", "I will work on cataloging research projects").
I'm fully aware that not everyone will be able to attend, but I'd
still like us to do this as one of the next steps if at all possible.
So, I've taken a first crack at a meeting planner page, here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_Committee/Meeting_Planner
Feel free to change the process, but if this format works for you,
please do indicate whether you can / can not attend during the
proposed times, and propose new times if necessary.
Thanks :-)
Erik
--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Dear research committee members,
dear interested Wikimedia Foundation staff,
as a reminder, the inaugural meeting of the Wikimedia Foundation
research committee will take place tomorrow, 5 PM UTC (for quick
reference, that's 10 AM in San Francisco, 1 PM in New York, and 7 PM
in Central Europe; see the full table at
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/ if needed).
As per our poll, the meeting will take place on Skype. Daniel Mietchen
has kindly volunteered to set up the Skype conference call. I'll act
as a back-up.
* IMPORTANT: If you haven't already provided your Skype ID, please do
so now. We will make an effort to record the meeting, if at all
possible.
* If you can't make the meeting, please let us know on
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_Committee/Meeting_Planner#Can.27t_m…
* In case there are technical issues, please keep an e-mail client
open. IRC is our fallback option if all else fails. :-)
I look forward to speaking to all of you tomorrow.
Thanks and all best,
Erik
--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Hello all,
as I mentioned in one of my initial e-mails, I'd like to add the
following Wikimedia Foundation staff members to the rcom-l list as
observers and participants. Please let me know if you have any
concerns about this.
Erik Zachte - Data Analyst, the brain behind stats.wikimedia.org
Howie Fung - Senior Product Manager, works directly with me on the
strategic development roadmap
Parul Vora - User Experience Researcher, helps us figure out
next-generation UIs and how to build them
Nimish Gautam - Software Developer who is currently shifting his focus
to Analytics (helping us implement a pilot of OpenWebAnalytics)
Amy Roth - Research Analyst with the public policy initiative, the
primary brain behind e.g. their quality assessment framework (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Public_Pol…
)
All best,
Erik
--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Dear All,
this is just to start the discussion. Below I copy the ideas some of us
shared at http://eiximenis.wikimedia.org/ResearchCommitteeBios , and also
the original functions compiled by Erik.
Functions:
The committee's core function includes:
* developing policy around researcher permissions for non-public data
* supporting the development of subject recruitment processes
* reviewing research projects when conflicts-of-interest arise
* articulating and channeling requests for data and technical
resources
* helping to formulate the key strategic research objectives of the
Wikimedia movement (see strategy.wikimedia.org)
* helping to formulate small tactical experiments related to
Wikimedia's strategic goals
* developing an open access policy as a requirement for significant
support from the Wikimedia Foundation
* helping create a "starter kit" for researchers to avoid duplication
of effort
Opinions on the scope:
What possible subcommittees/workgroups to form?
* Strategy
* Data
* Ethical review
* Subject recruitment
* Code
* Tests
* Funding
* Publishing
* Interface Research
[John Riedl]: My bias is that we should focus on creating workgroups in
areas that are exploring research that is particularly hard to carry out in
the current Wikipedia. One way to identify these areas is to look for
types of Wikipedia research that seems like it would be very valuable but
that is seldom done. Two examples of this type of research are: controlled
experiments with hundreds of users, and experiments in new Wikipedia
interfaces.
[Daniel Mietchen] I wonder how many subcommittees make sense given the
size of the committee. Prioritizing is necessary, though, and I think
substructures will naturally flow from there.
{Yaroslav Blanter] I guess we should understand 1) how meny members we
are; 2) define the scope. Then we can easily decide on the number of
committees and their scopes
[Milos Rancic] From the Wikimedia perspective, I would add that we need at
least three general tasks, which could be handled by listed committees or
by new one(s): (1) How to keep community healthy? (2) How to improve
existing projects? and (3) Which new projects are needed in the corpus of
free knowledge?
denny: Milos, you talking about Wiki(m/p)edia in general, or about
research projects in particular? I also agree, we can only do so much with
the size of the committee. Also, our task is obviously not to do the
research ourselve, but provide the interface between Wikimedia and the
wider research community.
[Milos Rancic] Denny, I am talking about research goals. It looks too
general, but as a Wikimedia bureaucrat, I would like to get scientific
answers to as many as possible questions related to those three general
questions. Moved at the level of particular researches, research which
would state that "edit" button should stay at some position because it
would improve participation -- would be a perfect example of research which
aim to cover the part of the second question (How to improve existing
projects?).
[Yaroslav Blanter] Sorry, I was a bit out of business for the weekend. I
in general agree with Milosh and with denny at the same time - we need to
understand what we can actually do with 8 committee members. Should we
first discuss what RESEARCH means? I guess there are several activities in
and around WMF projects, which are covered by this term and are in some or
other way in the scope of our committee, in no particular order: (1)
original research performed by WMF projects (there are only two where OR is
not prohibited - Wikibooks and Wikiversity), shoud there be some
guidelines? (2) Scientific research on WMF projects (probably mainly
Wikipedia) performed by either WMF-related or independent researchers; (3)
Non-WMF-related research performed by research institutions: Here our
business is only interaction between WMF projects and researchers at these
institutions. Do we want to handle all three? Is there is smth else which I
overlooked?
P.S. We started a serious discussion and I am not sure this is the best
interface. I believe Erik promised to open a mailing list, may be all this
can be moved into the list.
[denny] I agree with Yaroslav on maybe waiting for the list. These
wiki-like interfaces are known to be not the best for discussions like
these <reference needed>. ;)
[WereSpielChequers] I'm with Milos on the need for research to inform
decision making on existing projects, there have been a number of decisions
where it would have been really helpful to have a researcher look at the
stats and prepare a report to inform the discussion. Also I'm with Daniel
on thinking that it is a bit early to be forming subcommittes. I'm hoping
tha part of our role will be in advising researchers where there are
alternatives that are acceptable to both researchers and the community and
part will be explaining to other researchers why some things are not
acceptable to the community. For example in the last year we have had one
research project where someone was vandalising articles in order to see how
effective our anti-vandalism efforts were, and another was adding fake spam
links to see how many people would click through to a spam site; The first
could either have been done as an audit of existing articles to see how
many were vandalised, or by analysing vandalsim reversions to see how long
it took to spot the vandalism. I'm not convinced that there is an
alternative way to do the spam test, but as Wikipedia is unlikely to be
taking advertising in the foreseeable future and as the willingness to
click on a link is at least partially dependent on the trust one places in
the website where you see that link, then I don't see the value in testing
how well spam works in Wikipedia.
Cheers
Yaroslav
Dear all,
concerning the technical issues:
I am normally not using IRC, and I very much prefer skype conferences. If
I am the only one I am willing to compromise on this, but we may want to
discuss the preferences of the committee members.
Cheers
Yaroslav
Hi,
My take on "supporting the development of subject recruitment
processes" is that it will involve setting guidelines as to how
Wikimedians can be approached and asked to take part in research.
Setting such guidelines would be of benefit to researchers who want to
approach groups of wikimedians asking them to respond to a survey
without being blocked for spam, and Wikimedians who want to opt out
from such research, or at least to know that someone has checked out
the researcher and established that they are legit.
WereSpielChequers
On 1 September 2010 08:15, Fuster, Mayo <Mayo.Fuster(a)eui.eu> wrote:
> Hola!
>
> IRC or skype is fine with me. I am based in Europe hour line.
>
> Like Milos, I don't fully understand either what this means: "supporting the
> development of subject recruitment processes". In any case, I added my name
> and priorities to the functions list.
>
> Welcome to everybody! Mayo
>
> «·´`·.(*·.¸(`·.¸ ¸.·´)¸.·*).·´`·»
> «·´¨*·¸¸« Mayo Fuster Morell ».¸.·*¨`·»
> «·´`·.(¸.·´(¸.·* *·.¸)`·.¸).·´`·»
>
> Research Digital Commons Governance: http://www.onlinecreation.info
> European University Institute - Phd Candidate
> School of information Berkeley Visiting researcher
> Phone Italy: (New!) 0039-3312805010 or 0039-0558409982
> Phone Spanish State: 0034-648877748
> E-mail: mayo.fuster(a)eui.eu
> Skype: mayoneti
> Identi.ca: Mayo
> Postal address: Badia Fiesolana - Via dei Roccettini 9, I-50014 San Domenico
> di Fiesole (FI) - Italy
> Fax [+39] 055 4685 201
>
>
>
> -----Missatge original-----
> De: rcom-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org en nom de Aaron Halfaker
> Enviat el: dc. 01/09/2010 00:33
> Per a: The Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee mailing list
> Tema: Re: [RCom-l] IRC meetings
>
> I'm strongly in favor of voice conferencing of some sort (Skype or
> otherwise) due to the difference in the amount of time text and speech take
> to convey ideas. For example, recently, I have been exit-interviewing some
> enwp editors. Of those interviews I've done over the phone or skype, I was
> able to complete the entire question set in about 30 minutes. Whereas, the
> same question set took about 4 hours to complete over gtalk and IRC. In
> other words, conveying roughly the same ideas over text took about 8 times
> longer than voice.
>
> For the sake of keeping our synchronous meetings both brief and effective, I
> feel strongly that we should pursue some voice communication system.
>
> On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 2:33 AM, WereSpielChequers <
> werespielchequers(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I've experience of both IRC and Skype conferencing and I very much
>> prefer skype, though if we are all on it would help to have a chair
>> and a text channel.
>>
>> We need to decide whether the call is going to be recorded and or
>> streamed.
>>
>> Also before we decide to communicate in realtime as well as online,
>> can we establish whether there are common times when we are all
>> available? This shouldn't be too difficult if we don't have anyone
>> West of California or East of the Euphrates - are any of us in
>> Australasia, east or southern asia?
>>
>>
>>
>> On 28 August 2010 01:07, Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Just to say that I am not likely to be able to participate in
>> > voice/video conversations. I can try, but I am quite unsure about
>> > being able to have voice connection because of internet access
>> > quality. Nominally, it should work fine (ADSL 4Mbps/512Kbps), but the
>> > connection quality is not perfect, at least in the sense of skyping.
>> > Usually, I have a couple of interruptions during one 30-60 minutes
>> > session, which is OK if it is one-to-one communication, but could be
>> > very painful with many people in communication.
>> >
>> > But, all in all, I don't have any strong argument against textual
>> > skyping. I don't know how WebEx would work on my computer, while it
>> > sounds interesting. And, of course, I prefer IRC.
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > RCom-l mailing list
>> > RCom-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RCom-l mailing list
>> RCom-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RCom-l mailing list
> RCom-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l
>
>