Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-09-24/Recent research: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
Next edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Article status: In the media - in progress
 
layout skeleton, replacing what appears to be an accidental copy+paste from Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{Signpost draft}}{{Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-header|||}}</noinclude>
===Article status===
<!--****************************************************************
CHOOSE A STATUS FOR YOUR ARTICLE: (case-sensitive)
* Not started
* In progress
* Needs expansion
* Needs discussion
* Needs copyedit
* Needs review (the final step before being approved for publication)
* Done (for use by the editor(s) with responsibility for final review/publication)
* Cancelled
* Postponed
* On hiatus


{{Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-article-start|{{{1|(Your article's descriptive subtitle here)}}}|By [[User:Tbayer (WMF)|Tbayer]]| 24 September 2012}}
You can reset this table for a new week by replacing it with the code {{subst:Signpost assignments|{{subst:#time:Y-m-d|Sunday + 1 day}}}}
*******************************************************************-->


<div style="border: 1px dotted #CCC; padding: 1em; color: #666">A monthly overview of recent academic research about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects, edited jointly with the ''Wikimedia Research Committee'' and republished as the [[m:Research:Newsletter|Wikimedia Research Newsletter]].</div>
{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Tasks/Set


...
|Task1= Irregular articles
===Briefly===
|Link1= Wikipedia:OPDESK<!-- Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/{{{1}}}/Special_report -->
*'''...''': ...
|Status1= On hiatus
|Notes1=<!-- Irregular articles of particular significance can be slotted here to allow for visibility and discussion; Opinion essays, From the Editors, Interviews, Special reports etc.
NB: these must be approved by the managing editors in advance if they are to run in a given issue. -->


===References===
|Task2= News and notes
{{reflist|30em}}
|Link2= Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-09-24/News_and_notes
|Status2= Not started
|Notes2=as i noted elsewhere, i will not be around for the upcoming issue (and likely the first in october as well) due to relocation to a new university, regards --[[User:Jan eissfeldt|Jan eissfeldt]] ([[User talk:Jan eissfeldt|talk]]) 23:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
:Probably Gibraltargate and the movement towards setting up the travel site. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk) </font >]] 10:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


<noinclude>{{Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-article-comments-end||2012-08-27|2012-10-29}}</noinclude>
|Task3= In the media
|Link3= Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-09-24/In_the_media
|Status3= In progress
|Notes3= Ironholds' blog post [http://quominus.org/archives/979 on the Roth situation] got a lot of coverage and was allegedly retweeted by Cory Doctorow and Jimbo. [[User:Sven Manguard|<font color="207004"><big>'''S</big>ven <big>M</big>anguard'''</font>]] [[User talk:Sven Manguard|<small><font color="F0A804">'''Wha?'''</font></small>]] 00:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
:I've started a bit of an article about his post -- still needs expansion, of couse. '''[[User:Theopolisme|<font color=#00B74A>Theo]][[User_Talk:Theopolisme|<font color=#37DB79>polisme]]</font>''' 05:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

|Task4= Discussion report
|Link4= Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-09-24/Discussion_report
|Status4= Not started
|Notes4=Thanks, J36: are you planning to give a brief summary of the counterarguments for each issue? [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk) </font >]] 10:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
:Yeah I can do that when I add more discussions, unless you wanted to do that. --[[User:J36miles|J36miles]] ([[User talk:J36miles|talk]]) 03:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

|Task5= WikiProject report
|Link5= Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-09-24/WikiProject_report
|Status5= Not started
|Notes5=

|Task6= Featured content
|Link6= Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-09-24/Featured_content
|Status6= Not started
|Notes6=

|Task7= Arbitration report
|Link7= Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-09-24/Arbitration_report
|Status7= Not started
|Notes7=

|Task8= Technology report
|Link8= Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-09-24/Technology_report
|Status8= Not started
|Notes8=

|Task9= Recent research
|Link9= Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-09-24/Recent_research
|Status9=
|Notes9= Together with [[User:DarTar|DarTar]], I'm preparing this month's survey on recent academic research about Wikipedia, doubling as the [[m:Research:Newsletter|Wikimedia Research Newsletter]] ([[m:Research:Newsletter/Archives|now in its second year]]). Help is welcome to review and/or summarize the items listed [http://etherpad.wikimedia.org/WRN201209 here], as are suggestions of other new research papers that haven't been covered yet. This time there is an especially rich set of publications to cover, as all the papers from [[WikiSym]] have become [http://www.wikisym.org/ws2012/bin/view/Main/Program available online] - even brief summaries for these are welcome. Regards, [[User:Tbayer (WMF)|Tbayer (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Tbayer (WMF)|talk]]) 16:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

}}

Revision as of 06:27, 23 September 2012

The Signpost
← Back to Contents
View Latest Issue


Recent research

(Your article's descriptive subtitle here)

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Tbayer
A monthly overview of recent academic research about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects, edited jointly with the Wikimedia Research Committee and republished as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter.

...

Briefly

  • ...: ...

References

← Previous "Recent research"
Next "Recent research" →
+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.
You have spotted a very prominent typo unfortunately! Renklauf (talk) Wed Sep 26 19:10:01 UTC 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 19:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This report is full of glaring typos and grammatical errors. Perhaps the authors should have copyedited it before publishing it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would regard "full of" as somewhat exaggerated, but yes, some parts didn't really get copyedited before publication, due to lack of time. I think I can speak for the Signpost's copy-editing team in saying that copyeditors are always welcome - check Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom#Article status for sections that are marked "needs copyedit", during the run-up to publication (currently around Monday or early Tuesday UTC). Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 12:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They suggest Wikipedia editors ... build tools that aid in identifying and supporting desirable newcomers." Sounds great. Has anyone ever tried to do anything like that? Can we make a bot that goes through new editors' article contributions looking for patterns matching additions with references and handing out robo-encouragement? —Cupco 21:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like that idea. We should pursue this. Note that this can also be done manually through active wikiprojects; for WP:POLAND I review new articles weekly, and I leave some semi-templates thank you notes for creators of good articles (usually advising them they may want to DYK them), and/or inviting them to join our wikiproject. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please show support at Wikipedia:BOTREQ#Robo-encourageator because an auto-welcome bot is a perennial proposal which is generally thought to be a bad idea, but looking, for example, for new editors who have added a <ref> tag in at least two edits as I suggested to get started, is a substantially different thing than simply welcoming all new accounts and IPs. —Cupco 19:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That seemed to be able handling server load issues, not trying to identify the best new editors. —Cupco 23:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I guess there is no active Wikipedian left who remembers this group -- & I don't consider myself very active. The Volunteer Fire Department's purpose was to welcome new members & help them adapt to Wikipedia. An early article describing Wikipedia & its culture singled out the VFD as an important group for that reason; many online communities have disintegrated when they were overrun by people who wanted to turn the sites into their own playgrounds or otherwise subvert their intended purpose. Until late 2003, Wikipedia ran on a grand total of three computers, so the arrival of even a few dozen new members in 24 hours would cause significant server load issues. -- llywrch (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem of first-time editors having their edits reverted is a real problem. There are a number of topic areas in Wikipedia, not all of them seemingly that controversial, in which groups of established editors are resistant to any changes being made to that topic's articles, and revert almost all changes or additions on sight. Wikipedia probably should make it clearer that reverts, including single ones, are subject to sanction if the editor who did the revert made no effort to correct, discuss, or improve the edit in question. Cla68 (talk) 00:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the average quality of a "newbie" contribution is, say, 0.5 on a scale of 0–1, then, as the average quality of all articles surpasses that value (whatever it actually is), then the number of newbie reverts must go up, as desired. I think what we're seeing is just natural behavior. (I didn't read the article yet, though; I just found this discussion via a more recent one here)   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  16:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where to post? - on-topic possible partial explanaton

Where should I post this info on a possible partial explanaton of part of this article's topic? ParkSehJik (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep up with The Signpost on Twitter, Facebook or Mastodon.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-09-24/Recent_research&oldid=514125636"