Some of you may have seen this initiative:
http://sciencecodemanifesto.org/
I'd like to hear from you if this is something we would be willing to endorse on behalf of WMF.
Dario
A new project has been added to the Research directory: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Investigating_editing_anxiety_in_ne…
The PI – Benjamin Cowan – is an HCI researcher based in Edinburgh and I had a few conversations with him on this project over the last weeks.
This research sounds very timely and relevant to WMF's work on new user engagement (I am cc'ing the Summer of Research list), but we need to figure out how to best handle the recruitment of participants.
One option we discussed would be to (temporarily) integrate a questionnaire into the new MoodBar feature [1], but I need to discuss this internally with the tech people.
In the meantime your feedback is very welcome. I told Ben we need more information, for example on the target sample size. He'll be adding more details in the coming days.
Dario
[1] http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MoodBar
FYI, we have a new recruitment request. Please see the writeup (
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Anonymity_and_conformity_over_the_n…)
and discussion (
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Anonymity_and_conformity_over_…<http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Research_talk:Anonymity_and_con…>
)
-Aaron
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 5:57 AM, Michael Tsikerdekis
<tsikerdekis(a)gmail.com>wrote:
> Dear Dario Taraborelli & Aaron Halfaker,
>
> I would like to bring to your attention a new research project that i
> posted on Wikipedia. The page can be found here:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Anonymity_and_conformity_over_the_n…
>
> As i describe in the text the benefits for understanding the differences
> between complete anonymity, pseudonymity and when users use their emails can
> be tremendous for online communities and increasing collaboration.
>
> I also attach to this email a draft(which i haven't proof read yet so
> errors can be present) which contains a more rigorous presentation of the
> concepts. In fact this draft is the planned version that eventually after
> fixing will be send to the publisher of the journal.
>
> I need to note that the methods that i proposed are subject to change if
> they violate certain guidelines. Generally i will accept whatever changes
> you propose as long as they maintain the probability sampling method which
> is essential for better results.
>
> Since the survey has already been developed. I am providing you with two
> links(if you need more i can give you more) so that you can see it for
> yourselves and judge(hopefully with good comments but constructive criticism
> is more than welcome) :-)
>
> http://www.urcity.com/survey/index.php?user=17503006602
> http://www.urcity.com/survey/index.php?user=45766208972
>
> Thank you for taking the time to consider and i eagerly waiting to hear
> back from you :-)
>
> Best regards,
> Michail Tsikerdekis
> PhD student at Masaryk University, Faculty of Informatics
> Brno, Czech Republic
>
Dear All:
It was a great honor for me to be part of the WMF Research Committee.
However, in practice, I am finding it very difficult to find the time to
contribute.
It is thus best that I resign from the committee, so that you can give the
postion to someone who can contribute.
I wish you all the best, and I hope to be able to be useful in some other
way,
Luca
Hi,
three people reviewed Randall Livingstone's "Understanding the
Editor/Bot Relationship".
I have opened a poll and waited for far too long to approve this.
At this moment I advise Randall to move the project from "planned" to
"in progress" status.
Best regards,
Goran
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Truth is much too complicated to allow
anything but approximations."
:: John von Neumann
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.milovanovicresearch.com
Goran and I were talking yesterday and it reminded me on the need
which I have from time to time in relation to the Language committee:
Wikimedia peer reviewed journal. A couple of months ago I thought to
push it as Language committee issue, but yesterday we've released that
it's more logical to have it under RCom umbrella.
The journal should publish papers needed by Wikimedia. If we need a
research or even a review about anything, we could offer to a
researcher or scientist publishing the paper in our journal (of
course, if it passes some minimums). Creating infrastructure for peer
reviewed journal shouldn't be too hard or costly.
Thoughts?
Hi,
I have reviewed this project and opened a poll:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Understanding_the_Editor/Bot_Relati…
Thus far, only Mayo Fuster Morell provided her opinion on the
project's discussion page. Randall needs to start his recruitment
procedures very soon.
Could anyone please take another look at this so that we can say that
this is a go if no additional concerns arise? I have also reviewed
Randall's interview guides and I think everything is in place there.
Thank you very much.
Best,
Goran
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Truth is much too complicated to allow
anything but approximations."
:: John von Neumann
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.milovanovicresearch.com
Wikipedia Enables HTTPS for Privacy in Browsing
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/wikipedia_enables_https_for_privacy_in…
By Marshall Kirkpatrick
Wikipedia visitors can now leverage a new level of security and privacy
regarding their reading habits, thanks to the site's newly announced support
for HTTPS browsing. Ryan Lane, a Wikipedia Operations Engineer, writes that
HTTPS "allows you to visit our sites without having your browsing habits
tracked, and you can log in without having your password or user session
data stolen." Visitors seeking to navigate the site securely can simply
visit https://en.wikipedia.org to begin.
Wikipedia has made several steps away from the growing trend of encouraging
users to share their data with one another, in some cases explicitly
contrasting the giant encyclopedia's policies and ethos with Facebook's.
"Things like sharing what you're reading, that's where Facebook bumps up
against the line of what people find slightly weird and creepy," Wikipedia
Co-founder Jimmy Wales said in an interview with the Huffington Post's
Bianca Bosker last week. "If I go to read something on Wikipedia, that's my
own personal business...You should feel safe and private knowing that
whatever you want to learn, you go to Wikipedia to learn it and you don't
have to worry that you've accidentally told Facebook you want to learn it."
Facebook itself began offering HTTPS as an optional setting in January.
Twitter did the same in March.
There are down sides to using HTTPS connections, however. Some third party
apps that you do want to allow access to your browsing data, the fabulous
Apture for example, are unable to access and thus provide services on top of
data on HTTPS pages.
Many people will welcome the change none the less.
###
--
Steven Walling
Community Organizer at Wikimedia Foundation
wikimediafoundation.org
Hi,
We have a new research request at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kudpung/NPP , and I definitely can't
review as I'm somewhat involved, and heavily involved in various other
nonresearch things with the same editor.
Unlike previous requests this is very much a request from within the
community, so if anyone knows a grad student who is looking for a research
topic to get involved in this could be an interesting opportunity. The
survey will probably happen anyway - but I doubt if the results would be
circulated outside the Wikipedia community unless someone saw this as an
opportunity.
WereSpielChequers