DOCSLIB.ORG

Signpost 2015 Survey

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Signpost 2015 Survey Initial Report Last Modified: 02/25/2015 1. Compared to the Wikimedia Blog, would you say that the quality of the reports published in The Signpost is... # Answer Bar Response % 0 Much better 18 13% 1 Somewhat better 25 18% 2 About the same 20 14% 3 Somewhat worse 7 5% 4 Much worse 1 1% 5 Don't know 69 49% Total 140 Statistic Value Min Value 0 Max Value 5 Mean 3.11 Variance 4.01 Standard Deviation 2.00 Total Responses 140 2. Compared to national newspapers or news websites of your country, would you say that the quality of the reports published in The Signpost is... # Answer Bar Response % 0 Much better 8 6% 1 Somewhat better 27 19% 2 About the same 48 34% 3 Somewhat worse 41 29% 4 Much worse 6 4% 5 Don't know 10 7% Total 140 Statistic Value Min Value 0 Max Value 5 Mean 2.29 Variance 1.46 Standard Deviation 1.21 Total Responses 140 3. Compared to the Wikimedia Blog, would you say that your interest in the reports published in The Signpost is... # Answer Bar Response % 0 Much higher 37 26% 1 Somewhat higher 33 24% 2 About the same 17 12% 3 Somewhat less 4 3% 4 Much less 2 1% 5 Don't know 47 34% Total 140 Statistic Value Min Value 0 Max Value 5 Mean 2.30 Variance 4.34 Standard Deviation 2.08 Total Responses 140 4. How likely are you to recommend The Signpost to others? # Answer Bar Response % 1 Definitely will recommend 36 26% 2 Probably will recommend 49 35% 3 Not sure 37 26% 4 Probably will not recommend 15 11% 5 Definitely will not recommend 3 2% Total 140 Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 5 Mean 2.29 Variance 1.07 Standard Deviation 1.03 Total Responses 140 5. If you have contacted The Signpost regular staff, how responsive were the staff to your questions or comments? # Answer Bar Response % 1 Very responsive 29 21% 2 Somewhat responsive 18 13% 3 Somewhat unresponsive 8 6% 4 Very unresponsive 3 2% 5 I have not attempted to contact the regular staff, or I don't remember 82 59% Total 140 Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 5 Mean 3.65 Variance 2.92 Standard Deviation 1.71 Total Responses 140 6. How long have you read The Signpost? # Answer Bar Response % 0 Less than 1 month 1 1% 1 1 to 6 months 4 3% 2 6 months to 1 year 9 6% 3 1 to 2 years 20 14% 4 2 years or more 104 74% 5 Never read 2 1% Total 140 Statistic Value Min Value 0 Max Value 5 Mean 3.63 Variance 0.65 Standard Deviation 0.81 Total Responses 140 7. How often do you read The Signpost? # Answer Bar Response % 0 Usually once a week 89 64% 1 2 to 3 times a month 36 26% 2 Once a month 11 8% 3 Every 2-3 months 3 2% 4 2-3 times a year 0 0% 5 Once a year or less often 0 0% 6 Never 1 1% Total 140 Statistic Value Min Value 0 Max Value 6 Mean 0.52 Variance 0.75 Standard Deviation 0.87 Total Responses 140 8. For the following features, please let us know how interested you are in seeing them published on a regular basis. Completely Not very Neutral or Somewhat Very Total # Question Mean uninterested interested unsure interested interested Responses 1 The Featured Content Report (summaries of content that have passed quality reviews) 12 25 21 41 32 131 3.43 2 The Technology Report (news about Wikipedia's technical infrastructure and software) 2 21 26 41 41 131 3.75 3 The Traffic Report (news about Wikipedia articles with high readership) 7 18 20 51 35 131 3.68 4 The WikiProject Report (profiles of a variety of WikiProjects on English Wikipedia) 10 33 26 41 21 131 3.23 5 The Arbitration Report (summaries of activities by and about the Arbitration Committee) 5 15 27 50 34 131 3.71 6 The Discussion Report (summaries of open Requests for Comment and elections) 3 15 24 55 34 131 3.78 7 Wikipedia in Education (Signpost report that is independent of This Month in Education) 10 28 45 29 19 131 3.15 8 Gallery 18 23 39 35 16 131 3.06 9 In the Media (summaries of recent reports in non-Wikipedia news publications that mention Wikipedia) 2 7 8 42 72 131 4.34 News and Notes (news from around the Wikimedia universe such as chapters, Wikimania, the Wikimedia Foundation, and legal and financial 10 3 4 15 38 71 131 4.30 issues such as reports about paid editing, WMF-related lawsuits, and WMF grants) 11 Book reviews 15 26 38 27 25 131 3.16 Op-eds and forums (editorials by individual Wikipedians that do not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Signpost, the Arbitration Committee, 12 5 6 23 45 52 131 4.02 or the Wikimedia Foundation) 13 News from other Wikimedia projects, such as Wikimedia Commons 3 7 32 46 43 131 3.91 14 Copies of Wikimedia Blog posts 18 22 52 31 8 131 2.92 15 Copies of other Wikimedia publications like "This Month in Education" and "VisualEditor News" 21 33 42 28 7 131 2.75 16 Editor of the Week (profiles of editors around English Wikipedia who do good work) 9 26 30 36 30 131 3.40 News and Notes (news from around the Op-eds and Wikimedia forums universe (editorials such as by In the Media chapters, The The individual Copies of Editor of The Wikipedia in (summaries Wikimania, Featured The The Traffic The Discussion Wikipedians News other the Week Arbitration Education of recent the Content Technology Report WikiProject Report that do not from Wikimedia (profiles Report (Signpost reports in Wikimedia Report Report (news (news Report (summaries necessarily other Copies of publications of editors (summaries report that non- Foundation, (summaries about about (profiles of a of open Book reflect the Wikimedia Wikimedia like "This around Statistic of activities is Gallery Wikipedia and legal of content Wikipedia's Wikipedia variety of Requests reviews opinions of projects, Blog Month in English by and independent news and that have technical articles WikiProjects for The such as posts Education" Wikipedia about the of This publications financial passed infrastructure with high on English Comment Signpost, Wikimedia and who do Arbitration Month in that issues quality and software) readership) Wikipedia) and the Commons "VisualEditor good Committee) Education) mention such as reviews) elections) Arbitration News" work) Wikipedia) reports Committee, about paid or the editing, Wikimedia WMF- Foundation) related lawsuits, and WMF grants) Min Value 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Max Value 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Mean 3.43 3.75 3.68 3.23 3.71 3.78 3.15 3.06 4.34 4.30 3.16 4.02 3.91 2.92 2.75 3.40 Variance 1.68 1.24 1.36 1.47 1.19 1.07 1.31 1.49 0.86 0.90 1.61 1.11 0.99 1.20 1.27 1.52 Standard 1.30 1.11 1.17 1.21 1.09 1.03 1.14 1.22 0.92 0.95 1.27 1.05 1.00 1.10 1.13 1.23 Deviation Total 131 131 131 131 131 131 131 131 131 131 131 131 131 131 131 131 Responses 9. What are the main ways that you see The Signpost first published each week? # Question Never see Rarely see Sometimes see Often see Always see Total Responses Mean 1 My talk page 76 1 1 8 45 131 2.58 2 Other users' talk pages 51 21 26 22 11 131 2.40 3 Twitter 115 5 7 4 0 131 1.24 4 Facebook 109 7 11 3 1 131 1.32 5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost 37 15 22 23 34 131 3.02 6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single 63 16 20 14 18 131 2.30 7 The WikimediaAnnounce-l email list 112 5 4 5 5 131 1.37 8 The Wikimedia-l email list 104 7 9 5 6 131 1.49 9 https://identi.ca/wikisignpost 127 3 1 0 0 131 1.04 10 RSS 125 3 0 1 2 131 1.11 11 Other people tell me 117 6 5 2 1 131 1.20 12 Other 99 9 6 5 12 131 1.64 Other My The The Other users' Statistic talk Twitter Facebook https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single WikimediaAnnounce- Wikimedia- https://identi.ca/wikisignpost RSS people Other talk page l email list l email list tell me pages Min Value 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Max Value 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 Mean 2.58 2.40 1.24 1.32 3.02 2.30 1.37 1.49 1.04 1.11 1.20 1.64 Variance 3.61 1.87 0.47 0.62 2.48 2.23 0.99 1.17 0.05 0.33 0.42 1.66 Standard 1.90 1.37 0.69 0.79 1.57 1.49 0.99 1.08 0.23 0.57 0.65 1.29 Deviation Total 131 131 131 131 131 131 131 131 131 131 131 131 Responses 10.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Wikipedia's Economic Value
    WIKIPEDIA’S ECONOMIC VALUE Jonathan Band and Jonathan Gerafi policybandwidth In the copyright policy debate, proponents of strong copyright protection tend to be dismissive of the quality of freely available content. In response to counter- examples such as open access scholarly publications and advertising-supported business models (e.g., newspaper websites and the over-the-air television broadcasts viewed by 50 million Americans), the strong copyright proponents center their attack on amateur content. In this narrative, YouTube is for cat videos and Wikipedia is a wildly unreliable source of information. Recent studies, however, indicate that the volunteer-written and -edited Wikipedia is no less reliable than professionally edited encyclopedias such as the Encyclopedia Britannica.1 Moreover, Wikipedia has far broader coverage. Britannica, which discontinued its print edition in 2012 and now appears only online, contains 120,000 articles, all in English. Wikipedia, by contrast, has 4.3 million articles in English and a total of 22 million articles in 285 languages. Wikipedia attracts more than 470 million unique visitors a month who view over 19 billion pages.2 According to Alexa, it is the sixth most visited website in the world.3 Wikipedia, therefore, is a shining example of valuable content created by non- professionals. Is there a way to measure the economic value of this content? Because Wikipedia is created by volunteers, is administered by a non-profit foundation, and is distributed for free, the normal means of measuring value— such as revenue, market capitalization, and book value—do not directly apply. Nonetheless, there are a variety of methods for estimating its value in terms of its market value, its replacement cost, and the value it creates for its users.
    [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]
  • State of Wikimedia Communities of India
    State of Wikimedia Communities of India Assamese http://as.wikipedia.org State of Assamese Wikipedia RISE OF ASSAMESE WIKIPEDIA Number of edits and internal links EDITS PER MONTH INTERNAL LINKS GROWTH OF ASSAMESE WIKIPEDIA Number of good Date Articles January 2010 263 December 2012 301 (around 3 articles per month) November 2011 742 (around 40 articles per month) Future Plans Awareness Sessions and Wiki Academy Workshops in Universities of Assam. Conduct Assamese Editing Workshops to groom writers to write in Assamese. Future Plans Awareness Sessions and Wiki Academy Workshops in Universities of Assam. Conduct Assamese Editing Workshops to groom writers to write in Assamese. THANK YOU Bengali বাংলা উইকিপিডিয়া Bengali Wikipedia http://bn.wikipedia.org/ By Bengali Wikipedia community Bengali Language • 6th most spoken language • 230 million speakers Bengali Language • National language of Bangladesh • Official language of India • Official language in Sierra Leone Bengali Wikipedia • Started in 2004 • 22,000 articles • 2,500 page views per month • 150 active editors Bengali Wikipedia • Monthly meet ups • W10 anniversary • Women’s Wikipedia workshop Wikimedia Bangladesh local chapter approved in 2011 by Wikimedia Foundation English State of WikiProject India on ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA ● One of the largest Indian Wikipedias. ● WikiProject started on 11 July 2006 by GaneshK, an NRI. ● Number of article:89,874 articles. (Excludes those that are not tagged with the WikiProject banner) ● Editors – 465 (active) ● Featured content : FAs - 55, FLs - 20, A class – 2, GAs – 163. BASIC STATISTICS ● B class – 1188 ● C class – 801 ● Start – 10,931 ● Stub – 43,666 ● Unassessed for quality – 20,875 ● Unknown importance – 61,061 ● Cleanup tags – 43,080 articles & 71,415 tags BASIC STATISTICS ● Diversity of opinion ● Lack of reliable sources ● Indic sources „lost in translation“ ● Editor skills need to be upgraded ● Lack of leadership ● Lack of coordinated activities ● ….
    [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]
  • Group Identification, Goal Setting and Social Modeling in Directing Online
    Organizing without Formal Organization: Group Identification, Goal Setting and Social Modeling in Directing Online Production Haiyi Zhu, Robert Kraut, Aniket Kittur Carnegie Mellon University 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA15213 {haiyiz, robert.kraut, nkittur}@cs.cmu.edu ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION A challenge for many online production communities is to Online production communities are becoming increasingly direct their members to accomplish tasks that are important important in creating innovative products in the networked to the group, even when these tasks may not match world. These organizations have successfully aggregated individual members’ interests. Here we investigate how the efforts of millions of volunteers to produce complex combining group identification and direction setting can artifacts such as GNU/Linux and Wikipedia. Currently most motivate volunteers in online communities to accomplish large online projects primarily rely on a paradigm of self- tasks important to the success of the group as a whole. We direction in which contributors work primarily on the tasks hypothesize that group identity, the perception of belonging they are interested in. This paradigm provides a number of to a group, triggers in-group favoritism; and direction benefits. Contributors are motivated to work on the tasks in setting (including explicit direction from group goals and which they are intrinsically interested in and are likely to implicit direction from role models) focuses people’s choose tasks in which they already have some expertise [4]. group-oriented motivation towards the group’s important However, this approach breaks down when there are tasks. We tested our hypotheses in the context of conflicts between the interests of the contributors and the Wikipedia's Collaborations of the Week (COTW), a group interests of the project as a whole.
    [Show full text]
  • COI Editing and Its Discontents
    Wikipedia @ 20 Paid With Interest: COI Editing and its Discontents William Beutler Published on: Jun 10, 2019 Updated on: Jun 19, 2019 License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0) Wikipedia @ 20 Paid With Interest: COI Editing and its Discontents Image credit: Jim Pennucci. 1. Everyone involved with Wikipedia has some kind of interest in what it says. In the classic formulation, its volunteer editors are inspired to empower a global audience by compiling information in an accessible format. Practically speaking, though, most participate because the project appeals to their personality, their sense of justice, or there's an ego boost in deciding what the world knows about their pet subject. Its readers care simply because they want to learn something. For the most part, this works very well. Things are rather different when the motivation is financial. Most contributors consider editing Wikipedia to promote a business a morally different endeavor, and its readers, too, may be alarmed to learn some edits are made not to benevolently share knowledge with the world, but because the writer has a material stake in how the topic is represented. And yet the structure of Wikipedia makes this tension inevitable. The site's vast influence owes something to the fact that anyone can influence it, so when those described in its virtual pages decide to do exactly that, the result is one of Wikipedia's most challenging existential dilemmas. Wikipedia's favored terminology for this is "conflict of interest", referred to in shorthand as "COI"— although other terms such as "paid editing" or "paid advocacy" are often encountered.
    [Show full text]
  • Wikipedia Is Under 'Siege'
    Wikipedia and Academic Research A guide on interacting with the free encyclopaedia. Greek Fire Catapult (Harper's Engraving) Public domain image from Wikicommons. Wikipedia is under ‘siege’. It may be helpful, in the first instance, to think of Wikipedia in terms of it being under siege. Whether this is from politicians, PR companies or from private individuals seeking to either gain an advantage in some way or denigrate a rival in some way, the point remains that the Wikipedia community is primed to protect the integrity of its main Open Knowledge project in order to hold on what is good about it. Wikipedia administrators will often immediately revert any changes they perceive as a threat as part of their default safety-first approach. Consequently, the advice from Wikimedia UK is to adopt a ‘softly, softly’ approach when making edits to Wikipedia articles i.e. not overloading the encyclopaedia with too many external links at one time without due consideration of the relevance of the link to the article or if it really adds anything. Protecting the integrity of Wikipedia Parliament WikiEdits Twitter account - Screengrab 28/03/2016 With preserving the integrity of Wikipedia in mind, those Wikipedia edits made from Parliamentary IP addresses are routinely monitored through the Parliament WikiEdits Twitter account (@parliamentedits). Did you know? There are PR companies out there offering ‘Wikipedia sanitisation’ as a service. Imagine the following situation: A new Wikipedia User account has appeared and its only activity is to add external links- all to the same site- to a lot of articles. To a Wikipedia editor this looks promotional and doesn’t look like building an encyclopaedia.
    [Show full text]
  • Cooperation of Russia's Wiki- Volunteers with the Institutions of the Republic of Tatarstan
    ФАДН России Cooperation of Russia's Wiki- volunteers with the institutions of the Republic of Tatarstan «Language policy: practices from across Russia» Online dialogue forum Federal Agency for Ethnic Affairs (FADN), 18.12.2020 Farhad Fatkullin, materials - w.wiki/qT8 Distributed under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International free license pursuant to Art.1286 of the Russian Federation Civil Code Project objectives To assure To inspire other perseverance ethnic groups in and the Republic of development Tatarstan and of Tatar around Russia to language in the follow suit digital age Cooperation of Russia's Wiki-volunteers with the Republic of Tatarstan institutions — w.wiki/qT8 And who are you? * thinking, speaking and writing in 6 languages * Conference interpreting since 2000 * Bachelor of Management * Cross-cultural Communication & Interpreting Specialist * Taught Risk Management in English * Haven't been to the Arctic and Antarctic * 2018 Wikimedian of the Year Farhad Fatkullin, born 1979 * Volunteer secretary of «Wikipedias in Kazan the languages of Russia» initiative * Member of the Tatarstan Presidential [email protected] Commission for the Preservation and +7 9274 158066 Strengthening of Tatar language use (as frhdkazan @ Wikipedia Wikimedia RU Non-Profit Partnership representative) Cooperation of Russia's Wiki-volunteers with the Republic of Tatarstan institutions — w.wiki/qT8 Wiki-volunteering? «Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment.» Cooperation
    [Show full text]
  • Lessons from Citizendium
    Lessons from Citizendium Wikimania 2009, Buenos Aires, 28 August 2009 HaeB [[de:Benutzer:HaeB]], [[en:User:HaeB]] Please don't take photos during this talk. Citizendium Timeline ● September 2006: Citizendium announced. Sole founder: Larry Sanger, known as former editor-in-chief of Nupedia, chief organizer of Wikipedia (2001-2002), and later as Wikipedia critic ● October 2006: Started non-public pilot phase ● January 2007: “Big Unfork”: All unmodified copies of Wikipedia articles deleted ● March 2007: Public launch ● December 2007: Decision to use CC-BY-3.0, after debate about commercial reuse and compatibility with Wikipedia ● Mid-2009: Sanger largely inactive on Citizendium, focuses on WatchKnow ● August 2009: Larry Sanger announces he will step down as editor-in-chief soon (as committed to in 2006) Citizendium and Wikipedia: Similarities and differences ● Encyclopedia ● Strict real names ● Free license policy ● ● Open (anyone can Special role for contribute) experts: “editors” can issue content ● Created by amateurs decisions, binding to ● MediaWiki-based non-editors collaboration ● Governance: Social ● Non-profit contract, elements of a constitutional republic Wikipedian views of Citizendium ● Competitor for readers, contributions ● Ally, common goal of creating free encyclopedic content ● “Who?” ● In this talk: A long-time experiment testing several fundamental policy changes, in a framework which is still similar enough to that of Wikipedia to generate valuable evidence as to what their effect might be on WP Active editors: Waiting to explode ● Sanger (October 2007): ”At some point, possibly very soon, the Citizendium will grow explosively-- say, quadruple the number of its active contributors, or even grow by an order of magnitude ....“ © Aleksander Stos, CC-BY 3.0 Number of users that made at least one edit in each month Article creation rate: Still muddling Sanger (October 2007): “It's still possible that the project will, from here until eternity, muddle on creating 14 articles per day.
    [Show full text]
  • Wikimania Stockholm Program.Xlsx
    Wikimania Stockholm Program Aula Magna Södra Huset combined left & right A wing classroom. Plenary sessions 1200 Szymborska 30 halls Room A5137 B wing lecture hall. Murad left main hall 700 Maathai 100 Room B5 B wing classroom. Arnold right main hall 600 Strickland 30 Room B315 classroom on top level. B wing classroom. Gbowee 30 Menchú 30 Room B487 Officially Kungstenen classroom on top level. B wing classroom. Curie 50 Tu 40 Room B497 Officially Bergsmann en open space on D wing classroom. Karman 30 Ostrom 30 middle level Room D307 D wing classroom. Allhuset Ebadi 30 Room D315 Hall. Officially the D wing classroom. Yousafzai 120 Lessing 70 Rotunda Room D499 D wing classroom. Juristernas hus Alexievich 100 Room D416 downstairs hall. Montalcini 75 Officially the Reinholdssalen Williams upstairs classroom 30 Friday 16 August until 15:00 All day events: Community Village Hackathon upstairs in Juristernas Wikitongues language Building Aula Magna Building 08:30 – Registration 08:30 – 10:00 10:00 Welcome session & keynote 10:00 – Michael Peter Edson 10:00 – 12:00 12:00 co-founder and Associate Director of The Museum for the United Nations — UN Live 12:00 – Lunch 12:00 – 13:00 13:00 & meetups Building Aula Magna Allhuset Juristernas hus Södra Huset Building Murad Arnold Curie Karman Yousafzai Montalcini Szymborska Maathai Strickland Menchú Tu Ostrom Ebadi Lessing Room A5137 B5 B315 B487 B497 D307 D315 D499 Room Space Free Knowledge and the Sustainable RESEARCH STRATEGY EDUCATION GROWTH TECHNOLOGY PARTNERSHIPS TECHNOLOGY STRATEGY HEALTH PARTNERSHIPS
    [Show full text]
  • Academic Research About the Reliability of Wikipedia.Odp
    Academic research about the reliability of Wikipedia 台灣維基人冬聚 Taipei, January 7, 2012 T. Bayer Perspective of this talk ● About myself: – Wikipedian since 2003 (User:HaeB on de:, en:) – Editor of The Signpost on en:, 2010-11 – Working for the Foundation since July 2011 (contractor, supporting movement communications) – Editor of the Wikimedia Research Newsletter (together with WMF research analyst Dario Taraborelli): Monthly survey on recent academic research about Wikipedia Reliability of Wikipedia ● Standard criticism: “Wikipedia is not reliable because anyone can edit” – … is fallacious: ● Yes, one traditional quality control method (restrict who can write) is totally missing ● But there is a new quality control method: Anyone can correct mistakes ● But does the new method work? ● Need to examine the content, not the process that leads to it Anecdotes vs. systematic studies ● Seigenthaler scandal (2005, vandalism in biography article). Public opinion problem: Unusual, extreme cases are more newsworthy and memorable – and because of “anyone can edit”, these tend to be negative for WP. ● Scientists are trained not to rely on anecdotes: The 2005 Nature study ● “first [study] to use peer review to compare Wiki- pedia and Britannica’s coverage of science” ● 42 reviews by experts ● Errors per article: Wikipedia 4 , Britannica 3 ● Britannica protested, Nature stood by it ● 6 years later, still the most frequently cited study about Wikipedia's reliability ●Brockhaus – “the” German encyclopedia ● “generally regarded as the model for the development of many encyclopaedias in other languages” (Britannica entry “Brockhaus Enzyklopädie”) ● 1796: First edition ● 2005: 21st edition (30 volumes) ● 2009: Editorial staff dismissed, brand sold Stern (news magazine) study, 2007 ● Compared 50 random articles in German Wikipedia and Brockhaus ● Not peer-reviewed, but conducted by experienced research institute ● Wide range of topics ● Wikipedia more accurate: Brockhaus 2.3 vs.
    [Show full text]
  • Communications Tuning Session Q1 FY20-21 MTP Priority Update Brand Awareness
    Communications Tuning Session Q1 FY20-21 MTP Priority Update Brand Awareness Overview OKRs Brand Awareness is important to our strategic direction because we intend to grow around the world, and you cannot join a movement you do not Elevate Foundation brand understand. Our objective is to clarify and strengthen the global perception of Wikimedia and our free knowledge mission. Celebrate Wikipedia’s 20th Birthday Progress and Challenges Evolve Movement brand Elevate Brand was advanced through a far-reaching media campaign in India alongside fundraising efforts that helped to clarify the work that the foundation does, and where fundraising dollars go, while further underlining Actions how projects like Wikipedia work. We secured several thought leadership opportunities to reach new audiences. Our media impact increased, as did ● our social media and Medium following. Finalize communications campaign around WHO partnership (The campaign will launch Celebrate Wikipedia 20 is on track. The project is shifted towards by the end of October) virtual-only celebration planning, with online event guides and digital swag in production for January. ● Finalize launch plans for Wikipedia 20 (kick off is January 15) Activities to evolve the Movement Brand were paused through March 1 based on advice from project staff and a Board resolution on Sept. 24. ● Support ad-hoc Board committee on Movement Brand project (Q2 - Q3) Department: Communications Brand Awareness MTP Outcomes MTP Metrics Y2 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Goal Status Status Status Status Clarify and strengthen Wikipedia Clarify and strengthen Wikimedia Maintain the brand architecture awareness: brands to maintain awareness of brand GERMANY - 80% awareness of 70% and above.
    [Show full text]