Wikimedia blog

News from the Wikimedia Foundation and about the Wikimedia movement

Posts by Tilman Bayer

Wikimedia Research Newsletter, March 2014

Wikimedia Research Newsletter
Wikimedia Research Newsletter Logo.png


Vol: 4 • Issue: 3 • March 2014 [contribute] [archives] Syndicate the Wikimedia Research Newsletter feed

Wikipedians’ “encyclopedic identity” dominates even in Kosovo debates; analysis of “In the news” discussions; user hierarchy mapped

With contributions by: Federico Leva, Scott Hale, Kim Osman, Jonathan Morgan, Piotr Konieczny, Niklas Laxström, Tilman Bayer and James Heilman

Cross-language study of conflict on Wikipedia

Have you wondered about differences in the articles on Crimea in the Russian, Ukrainian, and English versions of Wikipedia? A newly published article entitled “Lost in Translation: Contexts, Computing, Disputing on Wikipedia”[1] doesn’t address Crimea, but nonetheless offers insight into the editing of contentious articles in multiple language editions through a heavy qualitative examination of Wikipedia articles about Kosovo in the Serbian, Croatian, and English editions.

The authors, Pasko Bilic and Luka Bulian from the University of Zagreb, found the main drivers of conflict and consensus were different group identities in relation to the topic (Kosovo) and to Wikipedia in general. Happily, the authors found the dominant identity among users in all three editions was the “encyclopedic identity,” which closely mirrored the rules and policies of Wikipedia (e.g., NPOV) even if the users didn’t cite such policies explicitly. (This echoes the result of a similar study regarding political identities of US editors, see previous coverage: “Being Wikipedian is more important than the political affiliation“.) Other identities were based largely on language and territorial identity. These identities, however, did not sort cleanly into the different language editions: “language and territory [did] not produce coherent and homogeneous wiki communities in any of the language editions.”

The English Wikipedia was seen by many users as providing greater visibility and thus “seem[ed] to offer a forum for both Pro-Serbian and Pro-Albanian viewpoints making it difficult to negotiate a middle path between all of the existing identities and viewpoints.” The Arbitration Committee, present in the English edition but not in the Serbian or Croatian editions, may have helped prevent even greater conflict. Enforcement of its decisions seemed generally to lead to greater caution in the edition process.

In line with previous work showing some users move between language editions, the authors found a significant amount of coordination work between the language editions. One central focus centered around whether other editions would follow the English edition in breaking the article into two separate articles (Republic of Kosovo and Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija).

The social construction of knowledge on English Wikipedia

review by Kim Osman

Another paper by Bilic, published in New Media & Society[2] looks at the logic behind networked societies and the myth perpetuated by media institutions that there is a center of the social world (as opposed to distributed nodes). The paper goes on to investigate the social processes that contribute to the creation of “mediated centers”, by analyzing the talk pages of English Wikipedia’s In The News (ITN) section.

Undertaking an ethnographic content analysis of ITN talk pages from 2004–2012, Bilic found three issues that were disputed among Wikipedians in their efforts to construct a necessarily temporal section of the encyclopedia. First, that editors differentiate between mass media and Wikipedia as a digital encyclopedia, however what constitutes the border between the two is often contested. Second, there was debate between inclusionists and deletionists regarding the criteria for stories making the ITN section. Third, conflict and discussion occurred regarding English Wikipedia’s relevance to a global audience.

The paper provides a good insight into how editors construct the ITN section and how it is positioned on the “thin line between mass media agenda and digital encyclopedia.” It would be interesting to see further research on the tensions between the Wikipedia policies mentioned in the paper (e.g. WP:NOTNEWS, NPOV) and mainstream media trends in light of other studies about Wikipedia’s approach to breaking news coverage.

User hierarchy map: Building Wikipedia’s Org Chart

(more…)

Costa Rican Wikimedians meet for the first time

This post is available in 2 languages:
Español  • English

This post was contributed by Allan Aguilar (User:Ralgis).

In English

The attendees of the first meeting of users of Wikimedia projects in Costa Rica

Users of Wikimedia projects in Costa Rica met for the first time on March 3, 2014 at San José, the capital city of that country, to discuss the first steps that Wikimedia Costa Rica must take in order to become a Wikimedia chapter recognized by the Wikimedia Foundation. The encuentro was held at the Miguel Obregón Lizano National Library, a state institution that collects and preserves the national bibliographic heritage.

Among the comments and proposals, a draft of bylaws was submitted, and it was determined that in Costa Rica there are many editors, mainly active in Spanish Wikipedia, which are not known to other Costa Rican Wikimedians. Therefore, the main issue addressed was to involve these editors in Wikimedia Costa Rica, and conduct activities for the dissemination of the Wikimedia projects at universities and other educational institutions. A concern was raised about the small amount of Wikimedian women. The desire to contribute to the dissemination and Wikipedia and its sister projects among women professionally engaged in informatics was also expressed.

Other topics were presented and treated, thus organizing the tasks of Wikimedia Costa Rica, including soon a participation in Wiki Loves Earth and Wiki Loves Monuments, and an active collaboration with the Regional Cooperation Initiative for Ibero-America (Iberocoop). Also, this meeting counted on the support of Iberocoop.

Wikimedians from Costa Rica and other regions of Ibero-America feel that this meeting was an important development for Wikimedia Costa Rica and for the dissemination of the Wikimedia projects in the country. Although there remains much to do, surely it will be done with the same enthusiasm as shown at this meetup.

Allan Aguilar
Spokesman for Wikimedia Costa Rica

En Español

Wikimedistas costarricenses se reunieron por primera vez

Los asistentes del primer encuentro de usuarios de los proyectos Wikimedia en Costa Rica

Usuarios de los proyectos Wikimedia en Costa Rica se reunieron por primera vez el 3 de marzo de 2014 en San José, la capital de ese país, para discutir los primeros pasos que Wikimedia Costa Rica debe tomar para convertirse en un capítulo Wikimedia reconocido por la Fundación Wikimedia. El encuentro se realizó en la Biblioteca Nacional Miguel Obregón Lizano, una institución estatal que recopila y conserva el patrimonio bibliográfico nacional.

Entre los comentarios y las propuestas, se presentó un borrador de estatutos y se determinó que en Costa Rica hay muchos editores, principalmente activos en Wikipedia en español, que no son conocidos por otros wikimedistas costarricenses. Por esto, el tema que se trató principalmente fue el de incorporar a estos editores a Wikimedia Costa Rica, y realizar actividades para la difusión de los proyectos Wikimedia en universidades y otras instituciones educativas. También se expresó una preocupación por la poca cantidad de mujeres wikimedistas, y el deseo de aportar con la difusión Wikipedia y sus projectos hermanos entre las mujeres dedicadas profesionalmente a la informática.

Otros temas fueron expuestos y tratados, organizando así los cometidos de Wikimedia Costa Rica, entre ellos una pronta participación en los concursos fotográficos Wiki Loves Earth y Wiki Loves Monuments y una activa colaboración con la Iniciativa de Cooperación Regional para Iberoamérica (Iberocoop). A su vez, este encuentro contó con el apoyo de Iberocoop.

Los wikimedistas costarricenses y de otras regiones de Iberoamérica consideran que esta reunión fue un paso importante para el desarrollo de Wikimedia Costa Rica y para la difusión de los proyectos Wikimedia en el país. Aunque queda mucho por hacer, seguramente se hará con el mismo entusiasmo de este encuentro.

Allan Aguilar
Portavoz de Wikimedia Costa Rica

Wikimedia Research Newsletter, February 2014

Wikimedia Research Newsletter
Wikimedia Research Newsletter Logo.png


Vol: 4 • Issue: 2 • February 2014 [contribute] [archives] Syndicate the Wikimedia Research Newsletter feed

CSCW ’14 retrospective; the impact of SOPA on deletionism; like-minded editors clustered; Wikipedia stylistic norms as a model for academic writing

With contributions by: David Ludwig, Morten Warncke-Wang, Maximilian Klein, Piotr Konieczny, Giovanni Luca Ciampaglia, Dario Taraborelli and Tilman Bayer

CSCW ’14 retrospective

The 17th ACM Conference on Computer-supported cooperative work and Social Computing (CSCW ’14) took place this month in Baltimore, Maryland.[supp 1] The conference brought together more than 500 researchers and practitioners from industry and academia presenting research on “the design and use of technologies that affect groups, organizations, communities, and networks.” Research on Wikipedia and wiki-based collaboration has been a major focus of CSCW in the past. This year, three papers on Wikipedia were presented:

Unique editors per quarter in conventional and alternative WikiProjects, 2002-2012

Edits per quarter in conventional and alternative WikiProjects, 2002-2012

Slides from Editing beyond articles[1]

The rise of alt.projects in Wikipedia

Jonathan Morgan from the Wikimedia Foundation and collaborators from the University of Washington[1] analyzed the nature of collaboration in alternative WikiProjects, i.e. projects that the authors identify as not following “the conventional pattern of coordinating a loosely defined range of article creation and curation-related activities within a well defined topic area” (examples of such alternative WikiProjects include the Guild of Copy Editors or WikiProject Dispute Resolution). The authors present an analysis of editing activity by members of these projects that are not focused on topic content editing. The paper also reports data on the number of contributors involved in WikiProjects over time: while the number of editors participating in conventional projects decreased by 51% between 2007 and 2012, participation in alternative projects only declined by 13% in the same period and saw an overall 57% increase in the raw number of contributions.

Categorizing barnstars via Mechanical Turk

Paul Andre and collaborators from Carnegie Mellon University presented a study showing how to effectively crowdsource a complex categorization task by assigning it to users with no prior knowledge or domain expertise.[2] The authors selected a corpus of Wikipedia barnstars and showed how different task designs can produce crowdsourced judgments where Mechanical Turk workers accurately match expert categorization. Expert categorization was obtained by recruiting two Wikipedians with substantial editing activity as independent raters.

Understanding donor behavior through email

A team of researchers from Yahoo! Research, the Qatar Computing Research Institute and UC Berkeley analyzed two months of anonymized email logs to understand the demographics, personal interests and donation behavior of individuals responding to different fundraising campaigns.[3] The results include donation email from the Wikimedia Foundation and indicate that among other campaigns, email from a wikimedia.org domain had the highest score of messages tagged for spam over total messages read, which the authors attribute to spoofing. The paper also indicates that the Wikimedia fundraiser tends to attract slightly more male than female donors.

Clustering Wikipedia editors by their biases

review by User:Maximilianklein

Building on the streams of rating editors by content persistence and algorithmically finding cliques of editors, Nakamura, Suzuki and Ishikawa propose[4] a sophisticated tweak to find like- and disparate-minded editors, and test it against the Japanese Wikipedia. The method works by finding cliques in a weighted graph between all editors of an article and weighting the edges by the agreement or disagreement between editor. To find the agreement between two editors, they iterate through the full edit history and use the content persistence axioms of interpreting edits that are leaving text unchanged as agreement, and deleting text as disagreement. Addressing that leaving text unchanged is not always a strong indication of agreement, they normalize by each action’s frequency of both the source editor and the target editor. That is, the method accounts for the propensity of an editor to change text, and the propensity of editors to have their text changed.

To verify their method, its results are compared to a simplified weighting scheme, random clustering, and human-clustered results on 7 articles in Japanese Wikipedia. In 6 out of 7 articles, the proposed technique beats simplified weighting. An example they present is their detection of pro- and anti-nuclear editors on the Nuclear Power Plant article. An implication of such detection would be a gadget that colours text of an article depending on which editor group wrote it.

Monthly research showcase launched

Video of the February 2014 Research Showcase

The lifetime of deleted articles by year of creation

The Wikimedia Foundation’s Research & Data team announced its first public showcase, a monthly review of work conducted by researchers at the Foundation. Aaron Halfaker presented a study of trends in newcomer article creation across 10 languages with a focus on the English and German Wikipedias (slides). The study indicates that in wikis where anonymous users can create articles, their articles are less likely to be deleted than articles created by newly registered editors. Oliver Keyes presented an analysis of how readers access Wikipedia on mobile devices and reviewed methods to identify the typical duration of a mobile browsing session (slides). The showcase is hosted at the Wikimedia Foundation every 3rd Wednesday of the month and live streamed on YouTube.[supp 2]

Study of AfD debates: Did the SOPA protests mellow deletionists?

(more…)

Wikimedia Highlights, January 2014

Information For versions in other languages, please check the wiki version of this report, or add your own translation there!

Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for January 2014, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement

Wikimedia Foundation highlights

New community-centered trademark policy

After a seven-month long community consultation, the Foundation’s legal team concluded work on the new trademark policy. The community discussion, which had more words than The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, resulted in a policy that is unconventional in how it provides liberal use of the Wikimedia marks, while maintaining legal protection. The final policy was approved by the Board of Trustees on February 1, effective immediately.

After one year, Individual Engagement Grants demonstrate potential for impact

Projects from the first round of IEGs

One year after Individual Engagement Grants program was launched in January 2013, the Foundation’s Learning & Evaluation team completed an impact assessment of the projects funded in the first round. One of the projects, The Wikipedia Library, generated $279,000 worth in donations from commercial research database providers, enabling Wikipedia editors to use high quality sources for free. At a grant cost of only $7,500, this represents a 37x return on investment. Another project, on generating publicity in China for Wikipedia, gained 10,000 followers for a new Wikipedia account on social networking site Weibo (25% of whom are women). Applications for the first round of 2014 start in March.

Multimedia vision for 2016, and request for comment on MP4 video

Video explaining the multimedia vision for 2016 ((slides)

The Foundation’s recently formed Multimedia team presented a multimedia vision for 2016. It is a scenario describing possible new tools for collaborating on multimedia on Commons, Wikipedia and other projects. The team invited community feedback on these ideas.

Separately, the multimedia team started a request for comment (RfC) on whether to support video files in the MP4 format on Wikimedia sites, in addition to the existing software support for the free formats Ogg Theora and WebM. Currently, only about 0.2% of the around 20 million files on Commons are videos, and it is assumed that MP4 support would make uploading and viewing videos much easier for many users, especially on some mobile devices that cannot play videos in the existing free formats. However, MP4 is a proprietary format covered by patents. Most users in the RfC preferred not to support MP4, maintaining the current practice of only using free formats.

New search engine

A new search infrastructure is being rolled out out to all Wikimedia wikis. It is based on the existing open-source software “Elasticsearch”, instead of the “Lucene-search” software that was written especially for MediaWiki. “Lucene-search” has worked well on Wikimedia sites for around 8 years, but developed some technical problems in 2013. The new search system for MediaWiki is called “CirrusSearch“. Its search results will reflect page updates much quicker than the old system. The text of templates in an article will now be found too, and some new search options were added. CirrusSearch is first becoming available as an optional Beta feature (see the timeline).

Data and Trends

(more…)

Wikimedia Foundation Report, January 2014

Information You are more than welcome to edit the wiki version of this report for the purposes of usefulness, presentation, etc., and to add translations of the “Highlights” excerpts.

Data and Trends

2013 traffic trends (presentation slides)

Global unique visitors for December:

490 million (-7.98% compared with November; +3.73% compared with the previous year)
(comScore data for all Wikimedia Foundation projects; comScore will release January data later in February)

Page requests for January:

20.678 billion (+13.2% compared with December; -7.0% compared with the previous year)
(Server log data, all Wikimedia Foundation content projects including mobile access, but excluding Wikidata and the Wikipedia main portal page.)

Active Registered Editors for December 2013 (>= 5 mainspace edits/month, excluding bots):

75,441 (+0.99% compared with November / -2.72% compared with the previous year)
(Database data, all Wikimedia Foundation projects.)

Report Card (integrating various statistical data and trends about WMF projects):

http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/

(Definitions)

Financials

Wikimedia Foundation YTD Revenue and Expenses vs Plan as of December 31, 2013

Wikimedia Foundation YTD Expenses by Functions as of December 31, 2013

(Financial information is only available through December 2013 at the time of this report.)

All financial information presented is for the Month-To-Date and Year-To-Date December 31, 2013.

Revenue 34,750,758
Expenses:
 Engineering Group 7,818,380
 Fundraising Group 2,267,144
 Grantmaking Group 838,068
 Programs Group 866,479
 Grants 1,289,803
 Governance Group 377,413
 Legal/Community Advocacy/Communications Group 1,752,003
 Finance/HR/Admin Group 3,566,318
Total Expenses 18,775,608
Total surplus (15,975,150)
in US dollars
  • Revenue for the month of December is $20.14MM versus plan of $19.61MM, approximately $535K or 3% over plan.
  • Year-to-date revenue is $34.75MM versus plan of $36.32MM, approximately $1.57MM or 4% under plan.
  • Expenses for the month of December is $3.65MM versus plan of $4.43MM, approximately $778K or 18% under plan, primarily due to lower personnel expenses, capital expenses, internet hosting, payment processing fees, and travel expenses partially offset by higher outside contract services.
  • Year-to-date expenses is $18.78MM versus plan of $22.86MM, approximately $4.08MM or 18% under plan, primarily due to lower personnel expenses, capital expenses, internet hosting, legal fees, payment processing fees, staff development expenses, and travel expenses partially offset by higher outside contract services and recruiting fees.
  • Cash position is $55.34MM as of December 31, 2013.

Highlights

New community-centered trademark policy

(more…)

Wikimedia Highlights, December 2013

Information For versions in other languages, please check the wiki version of this report, or add your own translation there!

Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for December 2013, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement

Wikimedia Foundation highlights

The new “editing Wikipedia” brochure

New brochure explains how to edit Wikipedia

The Education Program team completed work on an entirely new version of the Welcome to Wikipedia brochure (now titled “Editing Wikipedia“). It is also available for translation into other languages.

“Drafts” feature provides a gentler start for Wikipedia articles

In December, the new Draft namespace was launched on the English Wikipedia, as requested by the local community. It gives all users (registered or anonymous) the option to start new articles as a draft, instead of publishing them immediately (which can carry the risk that the new article is nominated for deletion before it can be improved). Drafts are marked by a “Draft:” in the page title, and are not visible to search engines.

Paul Kikuba is leading an IEG project to set up a Wikipedia center in the village of Mbazzi, Uganda

Recipients of Annual Plan Grants (FDC) and Individual Engagements Grants (IEG) announced

In December, 11 Wikimedia organizations were awarded annual plan grants totaling $4.4M, following the recommendations of the volunteer-run Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) in the first round of requests for 2013/2014. The approved amount was lower than the overall requested amount of US$5.94M, affirming the FDC’s guidance to the organizations to be thoughtful about growth.

Also in December, the selection of seven projects for the second round of Individual Engagements grants (IEG) was announced. They focus on activities from outreach to tool-building, all aimed at connecting and supporting the community.

Successful year-end online fundraising campaign

The WMF fundraising team ran the year-end online fundraising campaign in the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Roughly $18.7 million USD was raised from more than one million donors in December. During the two weeks when the campaign ran at full capacity, the team created and tested approximately 250 different banners. Banners will be run in other countries and languages throughout 2014.

Data and Trends

Global unique visitors for November:

(more…)

Wikimedia Foundation Report, December 2013

Information You are more than welcome to edit the wiki version of this report for the purposes of usefulness, presentation, etc., and to add translations of the “Highlights” excerpts.

Contents

Data and Trends

Global unique visitors for November:

533 million (+9.95% compared with October; +0.42% compared with the previous year)
(comScore data for all Wikimedia Foundation projects; comScore will release December data later in January)

Page requests for December:

18.270 billion (-4.0% compared with November; -9.4% compared with the previous year)
(Server log data, all Wikimedia Foundation projects including mobile access)

Active Registered Editors for November 2013 (>= 5 mainspace edits/month, excluding bots):

74,803 (-1.33% compared with October / -4.88% compared with the previous year)
(Database data, all Wikimedia Foundation projects.)

Report Card (integrating various statistical data and trends about WMF projects):

http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/

(Definitions)

Financials

Wikimedia Foundation YTD Revenue and Expenses vs Plan as of November 30, 2013

Wikimedia Foundation YTD Expenses by Functions as of November 30, 2013

(Financial information is only available through November 2013 at the time of this report.)

All financial information presented is for the Month-To-Date and Year-To-Date November 30, 2013.

Revenue 14,609,876
Expenses:
Engineering Group 6,589,458
Fundraising Group 1,439,053
Grantmaking Group 720,055
Programs Group 723,516
Grants 950,624
Governance Group 302,012
Legal/Community Advocacy/Communications Group 1,367,697
Finance/HR/Admin Group 3,029,513
Total Expenses 15,121,928
Total deficit (512,052)
in US dollars
  • Revenue for the month of November is $2.96MM versus plan of $8.83MM, approximately $5.87MM or 66% under plan.
  • Year-to-date revenue is $14.61MM versus plan of $16.71MM, approximately $2.1MM or 13% under plan.
  • Expenses for the month of November is $2.89MM versus plan of $3.73MM, approximately $844K or 23% under plan, primarily due to lower personnel expenses, capital expenses, internet hosting, payment processing fees, and travel expenses partially offset by higher outside contract services and recruiting expenses.
  • Year-to-date expenses is $15.12MM versus plan of $18.43MM, approximately $3.31MM or 18% under plan, primarily due to lower personnel expenses, capital expenses, internet hosting, legal fees, payment processing fees, staff development expenses, and travel expenses partially offset by higher outside contract services and recruiting fees.
  • Cash position is $38.8MM as of November 30, 2013.

Highlights

The new “editing Wikipedia” brochure

New brochure explains how to edit Wikipedia

(more…)

Wikimedia Research Newsletter, January 2014

Wikimedia Research Newsletter
Wikimedia Research Newsletter Logo.png


Vol: 4 • Issue: 1 • January 2014 [contribute] [archives] Syndicate the Wikimedia Research Newsletter feed

Translation assignments, weasel words, and Wikipedia’s content in its later years

With contributions by: Aaron Halfaker, Jonathan Morgan, Piotr Konieczny and Tilman Bayer

Translation students embrace Wikipedia assignments, but find user interface frustrating

An article, “Translating Wikipedia Articles: A Preliminary Report on Authentic Translation Projects in Formal Translator Training”, [1] reports on the author’s experiment with “a promising type of assignment in formal translator training which involves translating and publishing Wikipedia articles”, in three courses with second- and third-year students at the Institute of English Studies, University of Warsaw.

It was “enthusiastically embraced by the trainees … Practically all of the respondents [in a participant survey] concluded that the experience was either ‘positive’ (31 people, 56% of the respondents) or ‘very positive’ (23 people, 42% of the respondents).” And “more than 90% of the respondents (50 people) recommended that the exercise ‘should definitely be kept [in future courses], maybe with some improvements,’ and the remaining 5 people (9%) cautioned that improvements to the format were needed before it was used again. No-one recommended culling the exercise from the syllabus.”

However, the author cautions that Polish–English translations required more instructor feedback and editing than translations from English into Polish (the students’ native language). And “most people found the technological aspects of the assignment frustrating, with most students assessing them as either ‘hard’ (39%) or ‘very hard’ (16%) to complete. (more…)

Wikimedia Research Newsletter, December 2013

Wikimedia Research Newsletter
Wikimedia Research Newsletter Logo.png


Vol: 3 • Issue: 12 • December 2013 [contribute] [archives] Syndicate the Wikimedia Research Newsletter feed

Cross-language editors, election predictions, vandalism experiments

With contributions by: Daniel Mietchen, Maximilian Klein, Piotr Konieczny and Tilman Bayer

Cohort of cross-language Wikipedia editors analyzed

Network graph of the cross-language Wikipedia edits analyzed in the study.

The same network, with the node for the English Wikipedia removed.

Analyzing edits to the then 46 largest Wikipedias between July 9 and August 8, 2013, a study[1] identified a set of about 8,000 contributors (labeled multilingual) with a global user account who have edited more than one of these language versions (excluding Simple English, which was treated separately) in that time frame. It tested five hypotheses about cross-language editing and editors and looked, for instance, at the proportion of contributions that any of these Wikipedias receives from multilingual editors versus contributions from those only editing one language version. The research found that Esperanto and Malay stick out with a high proportion of contributions from multilinguals, and on the other end, that Japanese has few contributions from multilinguals. Overall, in terms of edits per user, multilingual users made more than twice the number of contributions to the study corpus than monolinguals did; they often work on the same topics across language; and in any given language, they are frequently editing articles not edited by monolinguals during the one-month period analyzed here. They thus serve a bridging function between languages.

Two existing write-ups are good starting points to putting the study in context.[supp 1][supp 2] In the long run, it would be interesting to extend the research to (a) cover a longer time span, (b) include contributions from non-registered users, despite technical difficulties, (c) include smaller Wikipedias, and (d) explore the effects of that bridging function in more detail, perhaps in search for ways to support its beneficial effects while minimizing the non-beneficial ones. It would also be interesting to focus on some aspects of those multilingual users (e.g. how do the languages they edit in match with the languages they display on their user pages) or their contributions (e.g. how do their contributions to text, illustrations, references, links, templates, categories or talk page discussions differ across languages, or how contributions from multilinguals differ across topics or between pages with high and low traffic – or to entertain ideas for a multilingual version of editing tools like User:SuggestBot. The paper is one of the first to make use of Wikidata; comparing such cross-lingual Wikipedia contributions with contributions to multi-lingual projects like Wikidata and Commons may also be a fruitful avenue for further research. (See also earlier coverage of a CSCW paper about a similar topic: “Activity of content translators on Wikipedia examined“)

Attempt to use Wikipedia pageviews to predict election results in Iran, Germany and the UK

(more…)

Sue Gardner to receive first Knight Innovation Award

Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Sue Gardner

The Wikimedia Foundation is delighted to share the news that Sue Gardner will receive the first Knight Innovation Award from the Knight Foundation, in conjunction with City University of New York’s Graduate School of Journalism and its Tow-Knight Center for Entrepreneurial Journalism.

“Sue’s extraordinary vision for Internet freedom and openness has helped guide the rapidly changing world of journalism into the digital age,” said Michael Maness, Knight Foundation vice president of journalism and media innovation. “Her outstanding accomplishments, first as a journalist and then as leader of the Wikimedia Foundation, have set a firm footing for the future of media.”

Sue began her career at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. After her time as a reporter, journalist and producer, she became the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation in 2007, utilizing her insight while overseeing a period of extraordinary growth both in the readership of Wikipedia – now the fifth most visited website in the world – and in donations made to the Wikimedia Foundation. In recognition of her bold international leadership in media and universal Internet access, Sue will receive a $25,000 award and will grant another $25,000 to a startup of her choice in support of innovation and entrepreneurship in news and information.

Jeff Jarvis, director of the Tow-Knight Center for Entrepreneurial Journalism, said, “We are committed to supporting new models for sustainable journalism and to incorporating technology developments as our industry transforms. Sue’s work clearly demonstrates her alignment with these goals. We are delighted to honor her for her brave and creative actions and accomplishments.”

The Wikimedia Foundation would like to thank Knight Foundation for publicly recognizing Sue’s leadership and dedication throughout her career. Sue is set to receive her award and speak on innovation today, Dec. 16, at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism.

Tilman Bayer
Movement Communications