The State of Wikimedia Research: The State of 2018–2019

Mohammed Sadat Abdulai Reem Al-Kashif Wikimedia Research: Tilman Bayer Matej Grochal Benjamin Mako Hill (emeritus) Isaac Johnson Miriam Redi Aaron Shaw

2019-08-28 2019, Stockholm 2018–2019 August 18, 2019

Mako has been doing this for many years. It started in 2008 and has happened almost every single year since. This began as an excuse for Mako to make sure he was up to date on Mohammed Sadat Abdulai Wikimedia Research. Reem Al-Kashif Tilman Bayer Matej Grochal Benjamin Mako Hill (emeritus) Isaac Johnson Miriam Redi Aaron Shaw Wikimania 2019, Stockholm August 18, 2019 “This talk will try to [provide] a quick tour – a literature review in the scholarly parlance – of the last year’s academic landscape around Wikimedia and its projects geared at non-academic “This talk will try to [provide] a quick tour – a literature review in editors and readers. It will try to categorize, distill, and describe, from a birds eye view, the academic landscape as it is shaping up around our project.” the scholarly parlance – of the last year’s academic landscape – From Mako’s Wikimania 2008 Submission around Wikimedia and its projects geared at non-academic editors and readers. It will try to categorize, distill, and describe, from a birds eye view, the academic landscape as it is shaping up 2019-08-28 around our project.” – From Mako’s Wikimania 2008 Submission Back at Wikimania 2008, Mako set out to run a session that would provide a comprehensive literature review of articles in published in the last year. Quote Mako:

“This talk will try to [provide] a quick tour – a literature review in the scholarly parlance – of the last year’s academic landscape around Wikimedia and its projects geared at non-academic editors and readers. It will try to categorize, distill, and describe, from a birds eye view, the academic landscape as it is shaping up around our project.” – From Mako’s Wikimania 2008 Submission

”Then, about two weeks before Wikimania, I did the scholar search so I could build the literature.” 2/35 “This talk will try to [provide] a quick tour – a literature review in the scholarly parlance – of the last year’s academic landscape around Wikimedia and its projects geared at non-academic “This talk will try to [provide] a quick tour – a literature review in editors and readers. It will try to categorize, distill, and describe, from a birds eye view, the academic landscape as it is shaping up around our project.” the scholarly parlance – of the last year’s academic landscape – From Mako’s Wikimania 2008 Submission around Wikimedia and its projects geared at non-academic editors and readers. It will try to categorize, distill, and describe, from a birds eye view, the academic landscape as it is shaping up 2019-08-28 around our project.” – From Mako’s Wikimania 2008 Submission ”I tried to import the whole list into Zotero and managed to get banned for abusing Google Scholar because they thought that no human being could realistically consume the amount of material published on Wikipedia that year. So anyway, I had a 45 minute talk so it worked out to 3.45 seconds to per paper... And believe it or not, this year is even bigger.”

2/35 “This talk will try to [provide] a quick tour – a literature review in the scholarly parlance – of the last year’s academic landscape around Wikimedia and its projects geared at non-academic “This talk will try to [provide] a quick tour – a literature review in editors and readers. It will try to categorize, distill, and describe, from a birds eye view, the academic landscape as it is shaping up around our project.” the scholarly parlance – of the last year’s academic landscape – From Mako’s Wikimania 2008 Submission around Wikimedia and its projects geared at non-academic editors and readers. It will try to categorize, distill, and describe, from a birds eye view, the academic landscape as it is shaping up 2019-08-28 around our project.” – From Mako’s Wikimania 2008 Submission ”I tried to import the whole list into Zotero and managed to get banned for abusing Google Scholar because they thought that no human being could realistically consume the amount of material published on Wikipedia that year. So anyway, I had a 45 minute talk so it worked out to 3.45 seconds to per paper... And believe it or not, this year is even bigger.”

2/35 1000

750 Number of items, per year, with the term “wikipedia” in the title.

2019-08-28 (Source: Google scholar results. Accessed: 2019-08-17)

Academics have written a lot of papers about Wikipedia. There are more 500 than 500 papers published about Wikipedia each year and although we’ve reached and moved past a peak it seems, it’s not slowing by much. Number of Papers

250

0

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Year

Number of items, per year, with the term “wikipedia” in the title. (Source: Google scholar results. Accessed: 2019-08-17) 3/35 • 8,700 Wikipedia-related publications in the Scopus database as of this week (August 14, 2019) • 109 recent publications covered in the 8 issues of the Wikimedia Research Newsletter from June 2017 to June 2018 (and hundreds more on our list!)

• 8,700 Wikipedia-related publications in the 2019-08-28

Scopus database as of this week (August The newsletter aims to be comprehensive, but mostly ignores papers that 14, 2019) use Wikipedia as a corpus only (which is popular e.g. in NLP research). • 109 recent publications covered in the 8 issues of the Wikimedia Research Newsletter from June 2017 to June 2018 (and hundreds more on our list!)

4/35 In selecting papers for this session, the goal is always to choose examples of work that:

• Represent important themes from Wikipedia in the last year. • Research that is likely to be of interest to Wikimedians. • Research by people who are not at Wikimania. • …with a bias towards peer-reviewed publications 2019-08-28

In selecting papers for this session, the goal is always This is our disclaimer slide... to choose examples of work that: Within these goals, the selections are incomplete, and wrong. • Represent important themes from Wikipedia in the last year. • Research that is likely to be of interest to Wikimedians. • Research by people who are not at Wikimania. • …with a bias towards peer-reviewed publications

5/35 Paper Summaries

Gender bias 2019-08-28

Speaker: Aaron Gender bias in coverage, content, deletion, etc. versus gender gaps (usually in participation, engagement, etc.) Gender bias

5/35 Gender bias

Gender bias Paper Summaries

Adams, Julia, Hannah Brückner, and Cambria Naslund. 2019. ”Who Counts as a Notable Sociologist on Wikipedia? Gender, Race, and the ‘Professor Test.’” Socius 5:2378023118823946. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2378023118823946 Gender bias 2019-08-28

Adams, Julia, Hannah Brückner, and Cambria Naslund. 2019. ”Who Counts as a Notable Sociologist on Wikipedia? Gender, Race, and the ‘Professor Test.’” Socius 5:2378023118823946. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2378023118823946

6/35 Adams et al.: Gender bias

• Sample ~3,000 U.S. sociology faculty in Adams et al.: Gender bias Paper Summaries 2014. • Matched to living sociologist articles on EN:WP. • Compare who has articles across demographic categories, scholarly status Adams et al.: Gender bias indicators, and accomplishments. • Also analyze article subject gender and deletion decisions.

• Sample ~3,000 U.S. sociology faculty in 2019-08-28 2014. Lots of details, choices w measures. Limitations. • Matched to living sociologist articles on EN:WP. • Compare who has articles across demographic categories, scholarly status indicators, and accomplishments. • Also analyze article subject gender and deletion decisions.

7/35 Adams et al.: Gender bias

Adams et al.: Gender bias Paper Summaries

Adams et al.: Gender bias 2019-08-28

• Explain figure • Nonwhite and female sociology faculty disproportionately less likely to be represented on EN:WP. • Seniority and citations matter a lot too. • No difference in deletion rate by gender.

8/35 Adams et al.: Gender bias

Adams et al.: Gender bias Paper Summaries

Adams et al.: Gender bias ”Supply” vs. ”Demand” side explanations & responses 2019-08-28

[Webmz]

• supply: issues w underrepresentation in the world • demand: issues w gatekeeping, exclusion in the community. • importance of WP as space for representation • call for more systematic efforts to make representation more equal (500 women scientists)

”Supply” vs. ”Demand” side explanations & responses

9/35 [Webmz] Paper Summaries

Information Integrity / Quality 2019-08-28

Speaker: Isaac Long-standing area of research on what leads to quality information on Wikimedia projects. I’m going to try to get two papers in so bear with me Information Integrity / Quality – one from Aaron Halfaker that is very applied and looks at supporting editors in evaluating new articles – so how do we ensure that high quality information makes it into the wikis – and another that is motivated by the many discussions around political polarization and whether that is damaging article quality on Wikipedia – so what processes lead to high quality articles.

9/35 Information Integrity / Quality

Information Integrity / Quality Paper Summaries

Asthana, Sumit and Aaron Halfaker. 2018. “With Few Eyes, All Hoaxes are Deep.” Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2, CSCW, Article 21 (November 2018), 18 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3274290 Information Integrity / Quality 2019-08-28

Asthana, Sumit and Aaron Halfaker. 2018. “With Few Eyes, All Hoaxes are Deep.” Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2, CSCW, Article 21 (November 2018), 18 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3274290

10/35 Asthana and Halfaker: Information Integrity / Quality

• Problem: large backlog in New Page Patrol (NPP) Asthana and Halfaker: Information Integrity / Quality and Articles for Creation (AfC) Paper Summaries • Goal: route new article (drafts) to relevant experts based on WikiProjects • Developed set of 43 mid-level categories based on WikiProject directory • Extracted dataset of 93,445 EN:WP articles and associated WikiProject labels Asthana and Halfaker: Information Integrity / • Built machine learning (GradientBoosting) models to predict labels from article text (word • Problem: large backlog in New Page Patrol (NPP) embeddings)

2019-08-28 Quality and Articles for Creation (AfC) • Goal: route new article (drafts) to relevant experts Clear problem they are addressing; straightforward approach based on based on WikiProjects existing Wikipedia practices • Developed set of 43 mid-level categories based on WikiProject directory • Extracted dataset of 93,445 EN:WP articles and associated WikiProject labels • Built machine learning (GradientBoosting) models to predict labels from article text (word embeddings)

11/35 Paper Summaries

By EpochFail - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=68255617 2019-08-28

By EpochFail - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=68255617

12/35 Asthana and Halfaker: Information Integrity / Quality

Asthana and Halfaker: Information Integrity / Quality Paper Summaries

• Achieved >90% accuracy • More importantly, ease of iteration and improving on labeling and model Asthana and Halfaker: Information Integrity /

2019-08-28 Quality

currently available via ORES API in ENWP

• Achieved >90% accuracy • More importantly, ease of iteration and improving on labeling and model

13/35 Information Integrity / Quality

Information Integrity / Quality Paper Summaries

Shi, Feng, Misha Teplitskiy, Eamon Duede, and James A. Evans. 2019. “The wisdom of polarized crowds.” Nature human behavior. 3, no. 4 (2019): 329. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0541-6 Information Integrity / Quality 2019-08-28

Shi, Feng, Misha Teplitskiy, Eamon Duede, and James A. Evans. 2019. “The wisdom of polarized crowds.” Nature human behavior. 3, no. 4 (2019): 329. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0541-6

14/35 Shi et al.: Information Integrity / Quality

• Goal: understand whether Wikipedia editors with high political polarity can create high-quality Shi et al.: Information Integrity / Quality articles Paper Summaries • Gathered edit history of EN:WP articles in categories related to politics (20,947 articles), social issues (162,085 articles), and science (49,530) • Calculated political polarity of editors based on how much they edit liberal / conservative articles • Evaluated political polarity scores through surveys • Goal: understand whether Wikipedia editors with Shi et al.: Information Integrity / Quality of active editors (500 requests; 118 responses) • For each category, build ordinal logistic regression relating article quality to the political polarity of editors high political polarity can create high-quality 2019-08-28 articles • Gathered edit history of EN:WP articles in categories related to politics (20,947 articles), social issues (162,085 articles), and science (49,530) • Calculated political polarity of editors based on how much they edit liberal / conservative articles • Evaluated political polarity scores through surveys of active editors (500 requests; 118 responses) • For each category, build ordinal logistic regression relating article quality to the political polarity of editors

15/35 Paper Summaries 2019-08-28

Relationship between article length and political polarity by topic

16/35 Shi et al.: Information Integrity / Quality

Shi et al.: Information Integrity / Quality Paper Summaries

Shi et al.: Information Integrity / Quality 2019-08-28

limitations around correlation vs. causation; still demonstrates that polarity does not break the process

17/35 Paper Summaries

How people read Wikipedia 2019-08-28

Speaker: Tilman

How people read Wikipedia

17/35 How people read Wikipedia

How people read Wikipedia Paper Summaries Sayyadiharikandeh, Mohsen, Jonathan Gordon, José-Luis Ambite and Kristina Lerman. ”Finding Prerequisite Relations using the Wikipedia Clickstream.” WWW ’19 Companion Proceedings of The 2019 World Wide Web Conference. Pages 1240-1247, San Francisco, USA — May 13 - 17, 2019 http://wikiworkshop.org/2019/papers/Wiki_Workshop_ How people read Wikipedia 2019_paper_5.pdf 2019-08-28

Sayyadiharikandeh, Mohsen, Jonathan Gordon, José-Luis Ambite and Kristina Lerman. ”Finding Prerequisite Relations using the Wikipedia Clickstream.” WWW ’19 Companion Proceedings of The 2019 World Wide Web Conference. Pages 1240-1247, San Francisco, USA — May 13 - 17, 2019 http://wikiworkshop.org/2019/papers/Wiki_Workshop_ 2019_paper_5.pdf

18/35 How people read Wikipedia

Goal: identify ”prerequisite relations between learning How people read Wikipedia Paper Summaries resources”, i.e. • To learn about A, I first need to learn about B • To learn about B, I first need to learn about C and D • etc. Goal: identify ”prerequisite How people read Wikipedia Important especially for self-learners using online materials such as Wikipedia articles relations between learning 2019-08-28 resources”, i.e. explain the image • To learn about A, I first need to learn about B (Image source: Figure 1 from the paper, ”Sample learning path from Metacademy”, cropped) • To learn about B, I first need to learn about C and D • etc. Important especially for self-learners using online materials such as Wikipedia articles

19/35 How people read Wikipedia

• Goal: automatically generate prerequisite relations between How people read Wikipedia concepts, by using navigation patterns of Wikipedia readers. Paper Summaries • Used the ”Wikipedia Clickstream” dataset - a sample of referrer data from Wikipedia’s weblogs, showing how many readers clicked from one article to another. • Built classifier, trained on prerequisite relations from Metacademy (online learning platform) and from Carnegie Mellon University. • Tested various features drawn from the Clickstream data. As How people read Wikipedia might be expected, the number of backwards clicks from a more advanced concept to one of its prerequisites turned out to be an important feature.

• Goal: automatically generate prerequisite relations between 2019-08-28 concepts, by using navigation patterns of Wikipedia readers. • Used the ”Wikipedia Clickstream” dataset - a sample of This dataset has been at the base of multiple other research papers since referrer data from Wikipedia’s weblogs, showing how many it was first released by WMF some years ago. readers clicked from one article to another. Skipping over a lot of ML detail here (e.g.they also had to match • Built classifier, trained on prerequisite relations from Wikipedia articles to Metacademy concepts). Metacademy (online learning platform) and from Carnegie Mellon University. • Tested various features drawn from the Clickstream data. As might be expected, the number of backwards clicks from a more advanced concept to one of its prerequisites turned out to be an important feature.

20/35 How people read Wikipedia How people read Wikipedia Paper Summaries Result: A well-performing algorithm that (according to the authors) improves on previous research and generates data that should be useful for self-directed learners using web reseources in general. How could this data be used on Wikipedia itself, to make it easier for readers to plan their learning How people read Wikipedia process? 2019-08-28

Result: A well-performing algorithm that (according to the authors) improves on previous research and generates data that should be useful for self-directed learners using web reseources in general. How could this data be used on Wikipedia itself, to make it easier for readers to plan their learning process?

21/35 Paper Summaries

Impact of Wikimedia projects on the world 2019-08-28

Speaker: Masssly

• Economists have previously attempted to calculate the monetary Impact of Wikimedia projects on the world value of Wikipedia and other free content used across the internet. • An interesting discussion as well surrounds the value of

21/35 Impact of Wikimedia projects on the world

Impact of Wikimedia projects on the world Paper Summaries Erickson, Kristofer, Felix Rodriguez Perez, Jesus Rodriguez Perez. 2018. ”What is the Commons Worth? Estimating the Value of Wikimedia Imagery by Observing Downstream Use”. In Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Open Collaboration (OpenSym ’18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 9, 6 pages. DOI: Impact of Wikimedia projects on the world https://doi.org/10.1145/3233391.3233533 2019-08-28

Erickson, Kristofer, Felix Rodriguez Perez, Jesus Rodriguez Perez. • This paper attempts to quantify the monetary value of Wikimedia 2018. ”What is the Commons Worth? Estimating the Value of Commons by tracking reuse of images from Wikimedia Commons across the internet. Wikimedia Imagery by Observing Downstream Use”. In Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Open • They did so by asking - how much the licensing of images on WC Collaboration (OpenSym ’18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 9, 6 would generate if it was operated under a for-profit model such as pages. DOI: that of Getty Images. https://doi.org/10.1145/3233391.3233533

22/35 Impact of Wikimedia projects on the world

Impact of Wikimedia projects on the world • The authors applied an automated reverse-image Paper Summaries search to a dataset of 10,000 random images on WC to determine where they had been used on the internet. • The domain of each re-use was then evaluated to determine whether, for instance, it was a commercial entity (i.e. .com) or a non-commercial Impact of Wikimedia projects on the world entity like (ie. .org) • Some 15% of the sample consisted of freely-licensed images that were pulled from Flickr. • The authors applied an automated reverse-image 2019-08-28 search to a dataset of 10,000 random images on WC to determine where they had been used on the • The authors applied an automated reverse-image search internet. to a dataset of 10,000 random images on WC to • The domain of each re-use was then evaluated to determine where they had been used on the internet. determine whether, for instance, it was a • The domain of each re-use was then evaluated to commercial entity (i.e. .com) or a non-commercial determine whether, for instance, it was a commercial entity like (ie. .org) entity (i.e. .com) or a non-commercial entity like (ie. .org) • Some 15% of the sample consisted of • Some 15% of the sample consisted of freely-licensed images that were pulled from Flickr. freely-licensed images that were pulled from Flickr.

23/35 Impact of Wikimedia projects on the world Impact of Wikimedia projects on the world Paper Summaries • Assumptions • USD $175 for commercial • USD $60 for non-commercial use • Results • 34.8% of images used externally Impact of Wikimedia projects on the world • USD $28.9 billion for Wikimedia Commons 2019-08-28

• Assumptions • Using Getty’s licensing model of USD $175 for commercial use and • USD $175 for commercial USD $60 for non-commercial use, • 34.8% images in the sample of 10,000 (excluding images previous • USD $60 for non-commercial use used on Flickr) were used at once. • Results • they extrapolate out how often on average each image is used (and • 34.8% of images used externally where) to reach a total estimate of USD $28.9 billion for Wikimedia • USD $28.9 billion for Wikimedia Commons Commons.

24/35 Impact of Wikimedia projects on the world

Impact of Wikimedia projects on the world Paper Summaries • The assumptions to this conclusion are not without question. • How much would people have paid if Wikimedia Commons was not operated Impact of Wikimedia projects on the world under a for-profit model? 2019-08-28

• The assumptions to this conclusion are not • This research has a lot of limitations and assumptions that are made regarding how much money individuals would pay to re-use without question. Commons images if they were not openly available • These assumptions are common to much work in this field of • How much would people have paid if economics though Wikimedia Commons was not operated • This is also an early attempt at estimating a value, and we expect to see a lot more papers of this variety in the coming years with the rise under a for-profit model? of and its CC0 license and more direct incorporation of Wikipedia into search and voice assistants • So we see this as one attempt to value Commons, but hopefully more estimates will be generated with complementary approaches that will help us get a better sense of the scale of the answer for

25/35 Commons as well as Wikipedia, Wikidata, and any other commons-based peer production products Paper Summaries

Community governance & participation 2019-08-28

Speaker: Reem & Matej

• Governance and participation have been studied for a Community governance & participation long time. • New focus on changes over time and new projects.

25/35 Governance & participation

Governance & participation Paper Summaries Keegan, Brian; Fiesler, Casey (2017). ”The Evolution and Consequences of Peer Producing Wikipedia’s Rules”. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Web and Social Media. Palo Alto, California: Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence. pp. 112–121. ISBN 978-1-57735-788-9. https://aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM17/paper/ Governance & participation view/15698 2019-08-28

Keegan, Brian; Fiesler, Casey (2017). ”The Evolution and Consequences of Peer Producing Wikipedia’s Rules”. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Web and Social Media. Palo Alto, California: Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence. pp. 112–121. ISBN 978-1-57735-788-9. https://aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM17/paper/ view/15698

26/35 Keegan and Fiesler: Governance & participation

Keegan and Fiesler: Governance & participation What was studied: Paper Summaries • 62 policy pages (incl. pillars) • 175 guideline pages • 1476 essay pages • 311 failed rule pages Keegan and Fiesler: Governance & participation • 265 248 revisions • 460 124 talk page revisions What was studied: 2019-08-28

• 62 policy pages (incl. pillars) • 175 guideline pages • 1476 essay pages • 311 failed rule pages • 265 248 revisions • 460 124 talk page revisions

27/35 Keegan and Fiesler: Governance & participation

Keegan and Fiesler: Governance & participation How have rule-making patterns on Wikipedia Paper Summaries changed over time? • More than a decade after the first policies were created, people are still heavily discussing and making rules. • However, more attention is given to older Keegan and Fiesler: Governance & participation rules than newer rules. They get more discussion but fewer changes. How have rule-making patterns on Wikipedia 2019-08-28 changed over time?

• More than a decade after the first policies were created, people are still heavily discussing and making rules. • However, more attention is given to older rules than newer rules. They get more discussion but fewer changes.

28/35 Keegan and Fiesler: Governance & participation

How have patterns of user contributions to Keegan and Fiesler: Governance & participation Paper Summaries Wikipedia rules changed over time? • Editors who are involved in rule-making are not always focused only on editing the rules and also they edit different kinds of rules. Keegan and Fiesler: Governance & participation • Also new rule-making edits started to take How have patterns of user contributions to place in talk pages (again deliberation) more than policy pages themselves. 2019-08-28 Wikipedia rules changed over time?

• Editors who are involved in rule-making are not always focused only on editing the rules and also they edit different kinds of rules. • Also new rule-making edits started to take place in talk pages (again deliberation) more than policy pages themselves.

29/35 Keegan and Fiesler: Governance & participation

Keegan and Fiesler: Governance & participation How does participation in Wikipedia Paper Summaries rulemaking change editors’ behavior?

• Getting involved in rule-making is a chance to rediscover shared values or to talk about best practices. Keegan and Fiesler: Governance & participation • Making and discussing rules doesn’t distract users from writing articles. 2019-08-28 How does participation in Wikipedia rulemaking change editors’ behavior?

• Getting involved in rule-making is a chance to rediscover shared values or to talk about best practices. • Making and discussing rules doesn’t distract users from writing articles.

30/35 Keegan and Fiesler: Governance & participation

Keegan and Fiesler: Governance & participation Paper Summaries

Keegan and Fiesler: Governance & participation 2019-08-28

31/35 Keegan and Fiesler: Governance & participation

Keegan and Fiesler: Governance & participation Paper Summaries

Keegan and Fiesler: Governance & participation 2019-08-28

32/35 Governance & participation (Wikidata bonus!)

Governance & participation (Wikidata bonus!) Paper Summaries Piscopo, Alessandro and Elena Simperl. 2018. ”Who Models the World?: Collaborative Ontology Creation and User Roles in Wikidata.” Proceedings of ACM on Human-Computer Interaction — CSCW. 2(CSCW):141:1–141:18. https: Governance & participation (Wikidata bonus!) //dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=3290265.3274410 2019-08-28

Speaker: Aaron Piscopo, Alessandro and Elena Simperl. 2018. ”Who Models the World?: Collaborative Ontology Creation and User Roles in Wikidata.” Proceedings of ACM on Human-Computer Interaction — CSCW. 2(CSCW):141:1–141:18. https: //dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=3290265.3274410

33/35 Piscopo and Simperl: Governance & participation

Piscopo and Simperl: Governance & participation Paper Summaries

Piscopo and Simperl: Governance &

2019-08-28 participation

34/35 More Resources

• Wikimedia Research Newsletter: More Resources [[:meta:Research:Newsletter]] / @WikiResearch Paper Summaries • OpenSym (née WikiSym) Next week in Skövde! • Wiki Workshop at The Web Conference • [[:meta:Research:Events]] • WMF Research Showcase More Resources • Wikimedia Research Newsletter: 2019-08-28 [[:meta:Research:Newsletter]] / @WikiResearch • OpenSym (née WikiSym) Next week in Skövde! Those are our six exemplary studies from the past year. • Wiki Workshop at The Web Conference There has been just tons and tons of work in this area. Trying to talk about this in 45 (or even 25) minutes seems increasingly crazy every year • [[:meta:Research:Events]] we try to do it. A major sin of omission this year is more research about • WMF Research Showcase Wikidata and research about more language communities (although both have been covered elsewhere at the conference!). The most important source is the Wikimedia Research Newsletter which has since 2011 been published monthly in the (English) Signpost and syndicated on the Wikimedia Research space on Meta-Wiki. (Special thanks to Miriam Redi, Dario Taraborelli, Tilman Bayer and User:Masssly for finding and cataloguing new publications throughout the year!) But there are other resources as well. And we encourage you to get

35/35 involved.