DOCSLIB.ORG

Wikipedia Editor Drop-Off a Framework to Characterize Editors’ Inactivity

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Wikipedia Editor Drop-Off a Framework to Characterize Editors’ Inactivity Wikipedia Editor Drop-Off A Framework to Characterize Editors’ Inactivity Marc Miquel-Ribé Cristian Consonni David Laniado Eurecat - Centre Tecnològic de Eurecat - Centre Tecnològic de Eurecat - Centre Tecnològic de Catalunya Catalunya Catalunya [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT spread to its adoption even among professionals and academia - it While there is extensive literature both on the motivations of has issues in being able to renew or grow its communities [3, 6]. Wikipedia’s editors and on newcomers’ retention, less is known In many Wikipedia language communities, the decline or stabi- about the process by which experienced editors leave. In this paper, lization in the number of editors was detected more than a decade we present an approach to characterize Wikipedia’s editor drop-off ago [3]. Despite dedicated interventions by the Wikimedia Foun- 1 2 3 as the transitional states from activity to inactivity. Our approach dation and other organizations, and groups of editors, it has 4 is based on the data that can be collected or inferred about editors’ not been possible to reverse this trend. While one can speculate activity within the project, namely their contributions to encyclope- whether the project is not as attractive to newcomers as in the dic articles, discussions with other editors, and overall participation. early days, we can observe that there are both language editions Along with the characterization, we want to advance three main and topics with very different levels of quality. Hill and Shaw[6] hypotheses, derived from the state of the art in the literature and the hint that a possible factor that is restraining Wikipedia’s growth is documentation produced by the community, to understand which the need to create, monitor, and maintain quality – including the interaction patterns may anticipate editors leaving Wikipedia: 1) management of tools and policies to counter vandalism and attacks abrupt interactions or conflict with other editors, 2) excess inthe caused by Wikipedia’s growing visibility. Thus, if newcomers are number and spread of interactions, and 3) a lack of interactions crucial to renew the communities, experienced editors are essential 5 with editors with similar characteristics. We present this work both to maintain the project. Any Wikipedian that is active in a partic- as a preliminary stage of our research to understand editor drop-off ular moment can become inactive, and, eventually, withdraw from and as a flexible frame to look at the phenomenon that we believe the project. can be useful in the future. Furthermore, by characterizing drop-off In this context, the risks associated with a declining community and identifying interaction patterns that may be associated with it, are especially relevant. Thus, understanding why and how editors it may be possible to assess the general health of a community, and leave Wikipedia has become an important question that has so far ultimately propose changes to improve it. received limited attention, not only to try and mitigate its causes, but also to foster the future of the encyclopedia. CCS CONCEPTS Previous research has described the relationship between par- ticipation and editor retention and, to a lesser extent, using tech- • Human-centered computing ! Empirical studies in col- niques from survival analysis, has depicted the contributor lifecy- laborative and social computing; Collaborative content cre- cle [18, 25]. While work on new editor retention focuses on editors ation. leaving in an initial period, often called the “onboarding phase”, reasons and dynamics may typically be different for users leaving KEYWORDS once having settled in the community and having undergone the Wikipedia, online communities, editor engagement, activity pat- learning process that becoming a community member entails [8]. terns, retiring, online collaboration In the rest of this paper, we first present in Section 2 the back- ground on editor drop-off that we collected from community essays ACM Reference Format: Marc Miquel-Ribé, Cristian Consonni, and David Laniado. 2021. Wikipedia on the subject. In Section 3, we present a framework to describe Editor Drop-Off: A Framework to Characterize Editors’ Inactivity. In Pro- different states of transition from activity to inactivity; rather than ceedings of Wiki Workshop 2021 at The Web Conference 2021 (Wiki Workshop asking Wikipedians to provide reasons for drop-off, we propose 2021). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 6 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/nnnnnnn. nnnnnnn 1The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization, located 1 INTRODUCTION in the United States, that supports and participates in the Wikimedia movement, owning the internet domain names of its projects and hosting its websites, including Wikipedia has reached its second decade being the largest mul- Wikipedia. One of the development teams at the WMF is dedicated to growth: https: tilingual and collaborative free knowledge repository in human //www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Growth. 2Local chapters and affiliate organizations of the Wikimedia Foundation have realized history. Even though the project is undeniably successful along projects focused on editor retention. For example, Wikimedia Hungary carried out many dimensions - from worldwide popularity and geographical one such project in 2019: https://w.wiki/337n. 3English Wikipedia editors’ efforts are coordinate in the Editor Retention WikiProject: https://w.wiki/337m. Wiki Workshop 2021, April 14, 2021, Lubiana, Slovenia (virtual event) 4https://stats.wikimedia.org 2021. 5https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Active_editor Wiki Workshop 2021, April 14, 2021, Lubiana, Slovenia (virtual event) Marc Miquel-Ribé, Cristian Consonni, and David Laniado a computational approach to characterize their activity and inter- for a procedure called “courtesy vanishing,12” which means having action patterns. In Section 4, we outline the main hypotheses that their username renamed and their userpages blanked or deleted, have been advanced in the state of the art to explain the phenome- while the contributions made to encyclopedic articles as well as non of drop-off. Finally, in Section 5, we discuss the next steps and user talk pages remain. This differentiates this procedure from what the implications of understanding editor drop-off. happens when a user leaves a social network and decides to “purge” We think of this work both as a preliminary stage of our research and delete all the submitted content [19]. to understand editor drop-off and as a flexible framework to look Semi-retiring (partial drop-off). A less radical option is semi- at the phenomenon that we believe can be useful in Wikipedia or retirement,13 which means becoming less active. Highly active any other collaborative project where contributions are tracked. Wikipedians commonly report that it is hard for them to take wik- 14 2 BACKGROUND ibreaks and find it challenging to stop editing at once. A semi- retired editor can pass from making thousands of edits per month The process by which an editor leaves Wikipedia presents a great to making just a few. variability in its motives and can lead to a partial or complete stop Similar to wikibreaks and retiring, editors can signal their status in editing. This process is also known on Wikipedia as retiring or by adding a “semi-retired” template to their userpage along with withdrawing from contribution. Even though a variety of external a message, so that other editors know that they can communicate 6 causes - even death - can influence the process by which editors with them, but they may not get a quick reply. With respect to the stop contribution, we limit the scope of this study to what we can other forms of editor drop-off, semi-retiring is the one that implies observe from the ensemble of events that happen on-wiki. a less drastic decision. We define drop-off as a user-driven voluntary choice to become inactive, thus excluding blocks or bans where a user loses their 3 CHARACTERIZING EDITOR DROP-OFF ability to contribute following a community decision. Being blocked “I like you when you do not edit, because it’s like you or even banned for a long period of time from a Wikimedia project are absent”15 implies the impossibility of participating, but it is not a drop-off. Instead, deciding not to return to editing after block7 or ban,8 or Following Neruda’s famous verse, we can assume an editor is even forcing a ban into what is known as “retirement by admin,9” absent when they are not editing, but it is harder to establish if they are different ways in which an editor can decide to withdraw from have left. Contrary to retention – where we can clearly define when Wikipedia. an editor has engaged after a given period of time and number of The three states of editor drop-off in their most common forms contributions – in our case it is always uncertain whether an editor are “wikibreaks,” “semi-retiring,” and “retiring.” has made a final decision to leave and will not return later. In fact, we can only look at templates added by a user to disclose 10 Wikibreak (temporary drop-off). A wikibreak or wiki-absence their status, or measure editor activity to infer it, but we cannot is a period during which an editor decides not to edit, although only be entirely certain. For defining active editors, a 5-edit per month temporarily. The community essay explaining the concept exists threshold is commonly considered, but being absent is more com- in 47 Wikipedia language editions, but the template a user adds plex, and cannot be captured by a one-size-fits-all metric. In the to their userpage to signal a wikibreak exists in 74 editions. The following subsection, we will present different metrics to assess template can be personalized with reasons such as “being busy,” both inactivity and decrease in activity.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Presenting Wikipedia Understand
    so that people Presenting Wikipedia understand Dr. Ziko van Dijk wikiteam.de Wikipedia author WMNL board WMDE Referentenprogramm wikiteam.de Motives Slides Content Preparations Motives Why going to Wikipedia lessons? Why 'ordering' them? The Wikimedia association wants your knowledge, your experiences! … My wife's father learned the profession of cooper. The article about this profession is rather short. My father-in-law could have contributed a lot. But he died. So the knowledge and the experiences about many old professions will some day 'die off'. We should not let it come that far. Also my mother-in-law died. And with her a part of the experienced history of the Expellation. And possibly my father could have contributed his personal view about some historical events, based on his experiences in the war. … My hair might be silver, but my knowledge is gold! http://www.lokalkompass.de/wesel/kultur/vhs-meine-haare-sind-silber-aber-mein-wissen-ist-gold-d91355.html What kind of hobby is Wikipedia? Come to Wikipedia and become a part of the wisdom of the crowds! Don't worry to make an error: Wikipedia articles are constantly improved by other users just like you! Wikipedia articles are written together and based on consensus! Why giving / organizing Wikipedia lessons? Preparations Wiki Encyclopedia The Concept Free Knowledge Content GFDL image filter Wikileaks controversy local visual Nupedia office Categories editor de.wikipedia Thematic Flagged John .org organizations revisions Seigenthaler GLAM free wiki principle encyclopedia knowledge
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Wikipedia: an Effective Anarchy Dariusz Jemielniak, Ph.D
    Wikipedia: An Effective Anarchy Dariusz Jemielniak, Ph.D. Kozminski University [email protected] Paper presented at the Society for Applied Anthropology conference in Baltimore, MD (USA), 27-31 March, 2012 (work in progress) This paper is the first report from a virtual ethnographic study (Hine, 2000; Kozinets, 2010) of Wikipedia community conducted 2006-2012, by the use of participative methods, and relying on an narrative analysis of Wikipedia organization (Czarniawska, 2000; Boje, 2001; Jemielniak & Kostera, 2010). It serves as a general introduction to Wikipedia community, and is also a basis for a discussion of a book in progress, which is going to address the topic. Contrarily to a common misconception, Wikipedia was not the first “wiki” in the world. “Wiki” (originated from Hawaiian word for “quick” or “fast”, and named after “Wiki Wiki Shuttle” on Honolulu International Airport) is a website technology based on a philosophy of tracking changes added by the users, with a simplified markup language (allowing easy additions of, e.g. bold, italics, or tables, without the need to learn full HTML syntax), and was originally created and made public in 1995 by Ward Cunningam, as WikiWikiWeb. WikiWikiWeb was an attractive choice among enterprises and was used for communication, collaborative ideas development, documentation, intranet, knowledge management, etc. It grew steadily in popularity, when Jimmy “Jimbo” Wales, then the CEO of Bomis Inc., started up his encyclopedic project in 2000: Nupedia. Nupedia was meant to be an online encyclopedia, with free content, and written by experts. In an attempt to meet the standards set by professional encyclopedias, the creators of Nupedia based it on a peer-review process, and not a wiki-type software.
    [Show full text]
  • Wikipedia and Intermediary Immunity: Supporting Sturdy Crowd Systems for Producing Reliable Information Jacob Rogers Abstract
    THE YALE LAW JOURNAL FORUM O CTOBER 9 , 2017 Wikipedia and Intermediary Immunity: Supporting Sturdy Crowd Systems for Producing Reliable Information Jacob Rogers abstract. The problem of fake news impacts a massive online ecosystem of individuals and organizations creating, sharing, and disseminating content around the world. One effective ap- proach to addressing false information lies in monitoring such information through an active, engaged volunteer community. Wikipedia, as one of the largest online volunteer contributor communities, presents one example of this approach. This Essay argues that the existing legal framework protecting intermediary companies in the United States empowers the Wikipedia community to ensure that information is accurate and well-sourced. The Essay further argues that current legal efforts to weaken these protections, in response to the “fake news” problem, are likely to create perverse incentives that will harm volunteer engagement and confuse the public. Finally, the Essay offers suggestions for other intermediaries beyond Wikipedia to help monitor their content through user community engagement. introduction Wikipedia is well-known as a free online encyclopedia that covers nearly any topic, including both the popular and the incredibly obscure. It is also an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, an example of one of the largest crowd- sourced, user-generated content websites in the world. This user-generated model is supported by the Wikimedia Foundation, which relies on the robust intermediary liability immunity framework of U.S. law to allow the volunteer editor community to work independently. Volunteer engagement on Wikipedia provides an effective framework for combating fake news and false infor- mation. 358 wikipedia and intermediary immunity: supporting sturdy crowd systems for producing reliable information It is perhaps surprising that a project open to public editing could be highly reliable.
    [Show full text]
  • Wikipedia Ahead
    Caution: Wikipedia not might be what you think it is… What is Wikipedia? Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that is written, updated, rewritten, and edited by registered site users around the world known as “Wikipedians”. The concept of a freely accessible online “work in progress” is known as a “wiki” (Lin, 2004). While it is possible to view the user profile of individual contributors, one of the prime features of a wiki is that the information is collectively owned, shared, and changed by Internet users who have access to that wiki. Wikipedia is accessible to anyone with an Internet connection. Why Wikipedia? The main philosophy behind Wikipedia is that the sum total of the ideas of Internet users are as credible and valid as the published views of experts who have advanced degrees and extensive experience in their field. Like any wiki, Wikipedians do not “own” or assume intellectual property of the ideas and text, as the information is shared or altered by any/all contributors. I’m not sure what you mean…. An example may be most helpful. Consider Wikipedia’s article on global warming. This text has been continually written, edited, and rewritten by hundreds of Internet users around the world over the past few years. When you open and read Wikipedia’s global warming article, you are reading a text that: • is the sum of all the contributions to this article until that moment. Explanation: The information in the article, in terms of both the content and language, will likely change in the next few hours, days, or months as Wikipedias continue to contribute to/modify the article.
    [Show full text]
  • Decentralization in Wikipedia Governance
    Decentralization in Wikipedia Governance Andrea Forte1, Vanessa Larco2 and Amy Bruckman1 1GVU Center, College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology {aforte, asb}@cc.gatech.edu 2Microsoft [email protected] This is a preprint version of the journal article: Forte, Andrea, Vanessa Larco and Amy Bruckman. (2009) Decentralization in Wikipedia Governance. Journal of Management Information Systems. 26(1) pp 49-72. Publisher: M.E. Sharp www.mesharpe.com/journals.asp Abstract How does “self-governance” happen in Wikipedia? Through in-depth interviews with twenty individuals who have held a variety of responsibilities in the English-language Wikipedia, we obtained rich descriptions of how various forces produce and regulate social structures on the site. Our analysis describes Wikipedia as an organization with highly refined policies, norms, and a technological architecture that supports organizational ideals of consensus building and discussion. We describe how governance on the site is becoming increasingly decentralized as the community grows and how this is predicted by theories of commons-based governance developed in offline contexts. We also briefly examine local governance structures called WikiProjects through the example of WikiProject Military History, one of the oldest and most prolific projects on the site. 1. The Mechanisms of Self-Organization Should a picture of a big, hairy tarantula appear in an encyclopedia article about arachnophobia? Does it illustrate the point, or just frighten potential readers? Reasonable people might disagree on this question. In a freely editable site like Wikipedia, anyone can add the photo, and someone else can remove it. And someone can add it back, and the process continues.
    [Show full text]
  • Movement Strategy Track Report
    31 March - 2 April 2017 Berlin Movement Strategy Track Report 1 [ Table of Contents ] Introduction [ DAY 2 ] [ DAY 1 ] D2.01 / Distilling Key Points D1.01 / Official Introduction 01 | Result of key points (clustered in ‘soft categories’): 01 | Welcoming Words D2.02 / Ryan Merkley, CEO of Creative D1.02 / The Movement Strategy Track Commons 01 | Principles [ DAY 3 ] 02 | Flow of activities (Explained) D3.01 / Theme Statements: Priorities D1.03 / The Complexity of a Movement and Implications 01 | Diversity of the Group 01 | Ritual dissent and appreciation 02 | Images of the Wikimedia 02 | Voting and comments Movement 03 | Results 03 | Hopes, Fears and Something Else D3.02 / Next Steps & Closing D1.04 / Analysis of Present Situation 01 | Movement Strategy: Building the Foundation D1.05 / Personalising the Present Situation 01 | ‘Wave’ trends analysis model D1.06 / Issues & Opportunities: Participant-led discussions 01 | Introduction to Open Space Technology 02 | Participant-led Discussions 2 Introduction This is a report for the Movement Strategy track at the Wikimedia Conference 2017. It is written in a narrative way, following the day-by-day flow of activities, to offer the reader an illustration of the process participants went through and the associated outcomes. The report was written by Luís Manuel Pinto, but several people made it possible by contributing with facilitation, creating infrastructure for documentation, clustering, analysing and transcribing inputs from participants, and photographing activities. People who have contributed directly to this report: Bhavesh Patel & Rob Lancaster (​Facilitators​) Suzie Nussel (Wikimedia Foundation) Ed Bland and Sara Johnson (​Williamsworks​) ş Eleonore Harmel, Hi ar Ersöz, Johanna Schlauß and Mathias Burke (​studio amore​) Jason Krüger and Beko (photography) Should you have any comments or questions concerning this report, please contact Luís by email: ​[email protected] Photo Credits Most photos by Jason Krüger for Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
    [Show full text]
  • From Faculty Enemy to Faculty Enabler
    Wikipedia @ 20 • ::Wikipedia @ 20 9 The First Twenty Years of Teaching with Wikipedia: From Faculty Enemy to Faculty Enabler Robert E. Cummings Published on: Oct 15, 2020 Updated on: Nov 16, 2020 License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0) Wikipedia @ 20 • ::Wikipedia @ 20 9 The First Twenty Years of Teaching with Wikipedia: From Faculty Enemy to Faculty Enabler Wikipedia jumbles the faculty roles of teaching, researching, and service by challenging traditional notions of faculty expertise, but a more integrated approach for these roles is also possible. I have never been able to see Wikipedia without the lens of a faculty member. On the one hand, I subconsciously carry with me perpetual concerns about accuracy and reliability. I am often trying to prove to myself that Wikipedia is legitimate work: it is, after all, the world’s largest encyclopedia. Writing to Wikipedia follows a set of complicated rules. So if it is a serious project with rules and enforcers and the world relies on its information, it ought to be universally accepted. And on the other hand? I want Wikipedia to be a lark. I also want Wikipedia to be a place where I wander freely and learn lots and lots of information. A guilty pleasure, not unlike pulling a book off a library shelf and simply reading it. I suspect that these anxieties I experience might speak to inherent conflict in being a faculty member while engaging Wikipedia. Reading Wikipedia, contributing to Wikipedia, and certainly teaching with Wikipedia jumble and reconfigure the faculty identities of teacher and researcher because they recontextualize our relationships with expertise itself.
    [Show full text]
  • The Culture of Wikipedia
    Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia Good Faith Collaboration The Culture of Wikipedia Joseph Michael Reagle Jr. Foreword by Lawrence Lessig The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Web edition, Copyright © 2011 by Joseph Michael Reagle Jr. CC-NC-SA 3.0 Purchase at Amazon.com | Barnes and Noble | IndieBound | MIT Press Wikipedia's style of collaborative production has been lauded, lambasted, and satirized. Despite unease over its implications for the character (and quality) of knowledge, Wikipedia has brought us closer than ever to a realization of the centuries-old Author Bio & Research Blog pursuit of a universal encyclopedia. Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia is a rich ethnographic portrayal of Wikipedia's historical roots, collaborative culture, and much debated legacy. Foreword Preface to the Web Edition Praise for Good Faith Collaboration Preface Extended Table of Contents "Reagle offers a compelling case that Wikipedia's most fascinating and unprecedented aspect isn't the encyclopedia itself — rather, it's the collaborative culture that underpins it: brawling, self-reflexive, funny, serious, and full-tilt committed to the 1. Nazis and Norms project, even if it means setting aside personal differences. Reagle's position as a scholar and a member of the community 2. The Pursuit of the Universal makes him uniquely situated to describe this culture." —Cory Doctorow , Boing Boing Encyclopedia "Reagle provides ample data regarding the everyday practices and cultural norms of the community which collaborates to 3. Good Faith Collaboration produce Wikipedia. His rich research and nuanced appreciation of the complexities of cultural digital media research are 4. The Puzzle of Openness well presented.
    [Show full text]
  • Supporting Organizational Effectiveness Within Movements
    While organizational effectiveness is a common concern with nonprofit organizations and networks, especially ones that are growing, the de-centralized culture of Wikimedia presented some unique challenges and opportunities. In a movement that so strongly valued the autonomy of indi- vidual organizations, what did it mean for the Foundation to Supporting Organizational attempt to increase their effectiveness – and how could it do this in a way that was not top-down? Furthermore, the Effectiveness Within Foundation was concerned that its financial support was fueling momentum toward larger-budget, “traditional” or Movements staffed nonprofit structures which might not be consistent with its history and mission as a global free-knowledge move- A Wikimedia Foundation Case Study ment created and driven largely by individual volunteers. Funders supporting movements face a unique set of chal- The Foundation was grappling with two fundamental lenges when trying to support organizations working questions: for the same cause. In their efforts to increase organi- zational effectiveness, foundations invariably face ques- How could the Wikimedia Foundation help Wikime- dia groups make a clearer connection between their tions of credibility and control, and sometimes encoun- strategies and their desired impacts without being di- ter diverging understandings of success. This case study 1 rective about those strategies and desired impacts? profiles how TCC Group – with its partner, the Wikimedia Foundation – developed an innovative, participatory ap- Anecdotally WMF knew that some chapters were proach to these challenges, resulting in increased orga- “more effective” than others, but without clear cri- nizational effectiveness in the Wikimedia movement. teria for success it was difficult to determine how or why some groups were thriving.
    [Show full text]
  • An Analysis of Contributions to Wikipedia from Tor
    Are anonymity-seekers just like everybody else? An analysis of contributions to Wikipedia from Tor Chau Tran Kaylea Champion Andrea Forte Department of Computer Science & Engineering Department of Communication College of Computing & Informatics New York University University of Washington Drexel University New York, USA Seatle, USA Philadelphia, USA [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Benjamin Mako Hill Rachel Greenstadt Department of Communication Department of Computer Science & Engineering University of Washington New York University Seatle, USA New York, USA [email protected] [email protected] Abstract—User-generated content sites routinely block contri- butions from users of privacy-enhancing proxies like Tor because of a perception that proxies are a source of vandalism, spam, and abuse. Although these blocks might be effective, collateral damage in the form of unrealized valuable contributions from anonymity seekers is invisible. One of the largest and most important user-generated content sites, Wikipedia, has attempted to block contributions from Tor users since as early as 2005. We demonstrate that these blocks have been imperfect and that thousands of attempts to edit on Wikipedia through Tor have been successful. We draw upon several data sources and analytical techniques to measure and describe the history of Tor editing on Wikipedia over time and to compare contributions from Tor users to those from other groups of Wikipedia users. Fig. 1. Screenshot of the page a user is shown when they attempt to edit the Our analysis suggests that although Tor users who slip through Wikipedia article on “Privacy” while using Tor. Wikipedia’s ban contribute content that is more likely to be reverted and to revert others, their contributions are otherwise similar in quality to those from other unregistered participants and to the initial contributions of registered users.
    [Show full text]
  • Wiki-Hacking: Opening up the Academy with Wikipedia
    St. John's University St. John's Scholar Faculty Publications Department of English 2010 Wiki-hacking: Opening Up the Academy with Wikipedia Adrianne Wadewitz Occidental College Anne Ellen Geller St. John's University, [email protected] Jon Beasley-Murray University of British Columbia, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.stjohns.edu/english_facpubs Part of the Education Commons, and the English Language and Literature Commons Recommended Citation Wadewitz, A., Geller, A. E., & Beasley-Murray, J. (2010). Wiki-hacking: Opening Up the Academy with Wikipedia. Hacking the Academy Retrieved from https://scholar.stjohns.edu/english_facpubs/4 This Book Chapter is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of English at St. John's Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of St. John's Scholar. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Wiki-hacking: Opening up the academy with Wikipedia Contents Wiki-hacking: Opening up the academy with Wikipedia Introduction Wikipedia in academia Constructing knowledge Writing within discourse communities What's missing from Wikipedia Postscript: Authorship and attribution in this article Links Notes Bibliography Wiki-hacking: Opening up the academy with Wikipedia By Adrianne Wadewitz, Anne Ellen Geller, Jon Beasley-Murray Introduction A week ago, on Friday, May 21, 2010, we three were part of a roundtable dedicated to Wikipedia and pedagogy as part of the 2010 Writing Across the Curriculum (http://www.indiana.edu/~wac2010/abstracts.shtml) conference. That was our first face-to-face encounter; none of us had ever met in real life.
    [Show full text]
  • Wikimedia Foundation 2010-11 Plan
    Wikimedia Foundation The Year Ahead, and the Year in Review SUE GARDNER WIKIMANIA – WASHINGTON DC – 14 JULY 2012 Purpose of this presentation is two things: Tell you what the WMF did in 2011-12 Tell you what the WMF plans to do in 2012-13 3 34.8 million dollars 4 You wrote the projects. You earned the goodwill. Your work is what donors are supporting. 5 6 7 Recapping 2011-12 8 Recapping 2011-12 Activities Supported 25% increase in readership from 400 to 500 million UVs; Visual Editor – released with save/edit capability & new parser, in restricted namespace on Mediawiki.org; Global Ed work is being done in 12 countries, and in eight the work is driven by volunteers – 19 million characters added to Wikipedia, with 50% female editors; The mobile platform has been redeveloped, Android app released, mobile PVs up 187%. Wikipedia Zero launched with new deals with two companies covering 28 countries, and more underway; Editor recruitment activity is underway in India and Brazil; Wikimedia Labs is launched and exceeding participation targets; Internationalization team has made significant improvements, particularly for Indic languages. It has also created new translation tools; New editor engagement – MoodBar/Feedback Dashboard, AFTv5, New Pages Feed tool, plus many research projects and small experiments (e.g., warnings & welcoming study, lapsed editor e-mail experiment,Teahouse). Nonetheless, editors are down to 85 from 89K; Upload wizard increased image uploads 27% over the year, with WLM causing a visible spike in September 2011. 9 Strategy Plan 2015 Goals (for reference) 1) Increase readership. 2) Increase the quantity of material we offer.
    [Show full text]