On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 12:27:34AM +0400, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
> > I've already done some of that for you, together with Jerome. :-)
> >
> > A new subsection here would work:
> >
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Harvard.2FScience_Po_Ad
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 01:19:04PM -0800, Dario Taraborelli wrote:
> Kim,
> I appreciate your contribution on the talk page of the project and
> I am happy to host a conference call with Jerome some time this
> week if you wish to help us out.
I see quite some issues, but I recognize an olive bra
Kim,
what about we stop naming and shaming and start thinking of how to solve
problems instead? Let's sit down and discuss how to fix the various issues that
have been raised on the lists, obtain community feedback and allow the
researchers to resume the collection of responses they need to com
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 12:27:34AM +0400, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
> I will do it right now, but to make it clear, we have 2 (TWO: twee, zwei,
> deux, dos ...) RCOM members in total who are involved: Dario and Mayo. I do
> not think anybody else would be able to answer any questions.
> And last
>
> I've already done some of that for you, together with Jerome. :-)
>
> A new subsection here would work:
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Harvard.2FScience_Po_Adverts
>
> And what we really need right now is 1 (preferably 2) rcom member
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 12:00:42AM +0400, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
> > With the greatest of respect.. it shouldn't need the whole of RCOM, no
> > statement is needed. Just for someone to go on-wiki and answer queries
> (or
> > if nothing else say - sorry we need to look into this, bear with us).
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 11:45:26PM +0400, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
> Do you actually realize that RCom is not a single person
Of course. That's why it's a good idea to assign a liason (which is a role
done by a person). The other solution is to allow rcom members to speak and
think autonomously,
> With the greatest of respect.. it shouldn't need the whole of RCOM, no
> statement is needed. Just for someone to go on-wiki and answer queries
(or
> if nothing else say - sorry we need to look into this, bear with us).
>
> The complaint Kim is making is that no one has done this.
>
> Tom
Well
>
> Do you actually realize that RCom is not a single person, and that there
> is no way we can issue an official statement in 24 hours? I am not sure we
> need to issue anything as a body anyway, but if we need it is absolutely
> unrealistic to do in 24 hours, since most of us have not been involv
> Personally, my rule of thumb is to give people 24 hours. Fair's fair:
> people don't watch the wiki all day, they might live in a different time
> zone, etc. Rcom have exceeded that limit and they still haven't posted
> on-wiki (which is the place where the people are who actually have a
say).
>
How about,
"What we are doing now: In response to community outcry, we have decided
not to repost such banners, rather than talking down to the community and
telling them they have misunderstood people's intentions".
I'm tired of the Foundation making unpopular decisions and then talking
down to
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 12:48:05PM -0500, Renata St wrote:
> >
> > Hmm, the research committee still hasn't made any onwiki statement at a
> > relevant location that I can find. If this were a court case, RCom
> > would pretty much have lost by default and/or forfeit already.
> >
>
> As I said, an
>
> The problem is that the research committee made only a token effort
> at finding or following relevant onwiki policy or consensus , nor did
> they try to explain or correct their actions onwiki in a timely manner
> as per WIARM. Or where they did, they didn't follow up.
>
> Any of those 3 eleme
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 10:11:35PM -0500, Renata St wrote:
>
> When did the community turned into this old grumpy bunch being unhappy
> about everything?
Eh? Not in the least. I think Jerome is a nice guy; and so does
practically everyone else who has gotten up to speed on what's going on.
The
Me too. I thought the survey was very nice and interesting. And this
"controversy" is actually upsetting me. Somebody comes in and tries to do a
nice thing ($ to WMF, interesting exercise for volunteers, knowledge for
the world). You think people would be happy. No! Never! Analyze and nitpick
tinie
The only documentation from the research team that I have seen so far with
respect to the target participation is in the initial proposal on enwp back
in 2010, when it was proposed to leave 40,000 talk page messages; there was
no indication that 30,000 of them would be newly registered users at tha
On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 07:51:06PM -0800, Dario Taraborelli wrote:
> So what went wrong?
Local consensus does not override global consensus.
* The research committee failed to adhere to applicable consensus. [1]
* In lieu of consensus, the research committee failed to adhere to or point to
any a
On 10 December 2011 14:53, Alasdair wrote:
> Speaking personally, now that it has been more explained and developed, I
> have no problem with the survey in principle,
Agreed, it's a proper survey by proper researchers and good in
substance, it's just been realised in a clunky manner. Everyone
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 9:14 AM, Mike Christie wrote:
> I'm not a fan of me-too posting, but I am breaking that rule to reinforce
> the point that there are those who, like Gregory and me, did not see any
> problem with the survey. Those who don't like it are, naturally, posting
> to comment; tho
Speaking personally, now that it has been more explained and developed, I have
no problem with the survey in principle, I understand the value that could be
obtained though it and the work and effort that was clearly put in behind the
scenes and I have no desire to be a Groucho Marx
(http://www
I'm not a fan of me-too posting, but I am breaking that rule to reinforce
the point that there are those who, like Gregory and me, did not see any
problem with the survey. Those who don't like it are, naturally, posting
to comment; those who found no issues with it are probably not. I would
not l
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 10:10, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> Dario Taraborelli, 10/12/2011 04:51:
>> • Is the Foundation running ads?
>> No, this banner is a recruitment campaign for a research project that has
>> been thoroughly reviewed by the Research Committee. We have a long tradition
>> of
(I originally sent this to WikiEn-l - but intended to send it here to
foundation-l... my email reader got confused..)
Hi Dario,
This proposal went through a long review process, involving community
> forums, the Research Committee and various WMF departments since early 2010.
>
> The Berkman rese
Dario Taraborelli, 10/12/2011 04:51:
> • Is the Foundation running ads?
> No, this banner is a recruitment campaign for a research project that has
> been thoroughly reviewed by the Research Committee. We have a long tradition
> of supporting recruitment for research about our communities via var
Having taken the survey - I honestly don't see what all the fuss is about.
Sure the banner could have been designed better - but this seems like a
disproportionate reaction to that minor mistake in the grand scheme of a one
year approval process that obviously was transparent. They're US based
Hi Jerome -
The only documentation from the research team that I have seen so far with
respect to the target participation is in the initial proposal on enwp back
in 2010, when it was proposed to leave 40,000 talk page messages; there was
no indication that 30,000 of them would be newly registered
This is actually not the case. Those 30,000 users or so are users who
registered their Wikipedia account 30 days prior to the launch of the
study. There are no other requirements for those users to be eligible to
participate. This is in line with Dario's previous message:
the banner has been desig
Hi Jerome - please show me where it says that; I've not been able to verify
that interpretation at all. My understanding is that the 30,000 are users
with fewer than 100 edits per month on average, not that they are new users.
Risker/Anne
2011/12/10 Jérôme Hergueux
> I do, however, have concer
I do, however, have concerns about any research that expects to contact
40,000 editors and involve 1500 of them; that is a very significant portion
of our active editorship on the English Wikipedia project.
Commenting on this: out of those targeted 40,000 editors, 30,000 or so are
*newly registere
On 9 December 2011 22:51, Dario Taraborelli wrote:
> I’d like to give everybody on this list some information on the
> Berkman/Sciences Po research project that many of you have been discussing
> here.
>
> On Thursday the Wikimedia Foundation announced the launch of a banner to
> support a study l
I’d like to give everybody on this list some information on the
Berkman/Sciences Po research project that many of you have been discussing here.
On Thursday the Wikimedia Foundation announced the launch of a banner to
support a study led by a team at the Berkman Center/Sciences Po and recruiting
31 matches
Mail list logo
