finished version of talk for presentation

[state_of_wikimedia_research_2013] / 20130809-wikimania_research.tex

\documentclass[xcolor=dvipsnames]{beamer}

% set up the file to create notes in the output PDFs
\usepackage{pgfpages}
\input{notes.config}

\renewcommand{\rmdefault}{ugm}
\usepackage[garamond]{mathdesign}

\renewcommand{\sfdefault}{phv}
\usepackage{relsize}

\usepackage{ucs}
\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage{textcomp}

% add tikz and a bunch of tikz foo
\usepackage{tikz}
\usetikzlibrary{shapes,shapes.misc,backgrounds,fit,positioning}
\tikzstyle{every picture}+=[overlay,remember picture]

% add functions to circle parts of slides (e.g., in tables)
\newcommand\marktopleft[1]{%
    \tikz[overlay,remember picture] 
        \node (marker-#1-a) at (0,1.5ex) {};%
}
\newcommand\markbottomright[1]{%
    \tikz[overlay,remember picture] 
        \node (marker-#1-b) at (0,0) {};%
    \tikz[overlay,remember picture,dashed,inner sep=3pt]
        \node[violet!75,ultra thick,draw,rounded rectangle,fit=(marker-#1-a.center) (marker-#1-b.center)] {};%
}

% DEPRECATED function to build a huge centered dropshadow
\newcommand\dropshadow[3]{%
  \node[black!30!white] at (#1+0.1,#2-0.1) {
    \scalebox{2}{\Huge \textbf{#3}}
  };
  \node at (#1,#2) {
    \scalebox{2}{\Huge \e{#3}}
  };
}

% more flexible non-tikz alternative with no dropshadow 
\newlength{\centertxtlen}
\makeatletter
\newcommand\centertext[2]{%
  \setlength{\centertxtlen}{#1}%
  \setlength{\centertxtlen}{0.35\centertxtlen}%
  {\centering
    \fontsize{#1}{2\centertxtlen}\selectfont
    \e{#2}

  }
}

% create an empty quotetxt so we can reuse it
\newcommand{\quotetxt}{}

% add function to stop numbering appendix slides
\newcommand{\backupbegin}{
   \newcounter{framenumberappendix}
   \setcounter{framenumberappendix}{\value{framenumber}}
}
\newcommand{\backupend}{
   \addtocounter{framenumberappendix}{-\value{framenumber}}
   \addtocounter{framenumber}{\value{framenumberappendix}} 
}

% packages i use in essentially every document
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{url}
% \usepackage{dcolumn}
% \usepackage{booktabs}

% replace footnotes with symbols instead of numbers
\renewcommand*{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
\usepackage{perpage}
\MakePerPage{footnote}

%% BEAMER THEME STUFF
\usetheme[pageofpages=/,% String used between the current page and the
                         % total page count.
          bullet=default,% Use circles instead of squares for bullets.
          titleline=false,% Show a line below the frame title.
          alternativetitlepage=true,% Use the fancy title page.
          titlepagelogo=figures/logo.pdf,% Logo for the first page.
          %watermark=watermark-polito,% Watermark used in every page.
          watermarkheight=100px,% Height of the watermark.
          watermarkheightmult=4,% The watermark image is 4 times bigger
                                % than watermarkheight.
          ]{Torino}

\usecolortheme{mako}
\useinnertheme{rectangles}
%\setbeamertemplate{blocks}[rounded][]
\setbeamercolor{block title}{bg=makopurple3, fg=White}

\setbeamertemplate{items}[default] 
\setbeamertemplate{blocks}[shadow=true] 

\usepackage{tcolorbox}
% These options will be applied to all `tcolorboxes`
\tcbset{%
    noparskip,
    colback=makopurple5, %background color of the box
    colframe=makopurple1, %color of frame and title background
    coltext=black, %color of body text
    coltitle=white, %color of title text 
    arc=0em,
    left=0.1em,
    right=0.1em,
    fonttitle=\bfseries,
    alerted/.style={coltitle=red, 
                     colframe=gray!40},
    example/.style={coltitle=black, 
                     colframe=green!20,             
                     colback=green!5},
    }


%\useoutertheme{infolines}
%\usepackage[breaklinks]{hyperref}

\hypersetup{colorlinks=true, linkcolor=Black, citecolor=Black, filecolor=makopurple1,
    urlcolor=Plum, unicode=true}

% create a boldface version of the header
\setbeamerfont{frametitle}{series=\bfseries}
\setbeamerfont{title}{series=\bfseries}

% tweak the beamer font to make it a bit lists a bit smaller
\setbeamerfont*{itemize/enumerate body}{size=\small}
\setbeamerfont*{itemize/enumerate subbody}{size=\footnotesize}
\setbeamerfont*{itemize/enumerate subsubbody}{size=\footnotesize}

% indent the margins of the itemize lists a little bit
\setlength{\leftmargin}{0pt}
\setlength{\leftmargini}{0.7cm}
\setlength{\leftmarginii}{0.7cm}

% create a new \e{} command to make things purple and bold
\newcommand{\e}[1]{\textcolor{makopurple1}{\textbf{#1}}}

% remove the nagivation symbols
\setbeamertemplate{navigation symbols}{}

\title{Presentation Title}
% \subtitle{Presentation Subtitle}
\author[Benj. Mako Hill]{\textbf{Benjamin Mako Hill}\\ mako@mit.edu}

\institute[MIT/Harvard]{\textbf{Massachusetts Institute of Technology}\\
  Sloan School of Management\\
  MIT Media Lab\\
  \hspace{1pt}\\
  \textbf{Harvard University}\\
  Berkman Center for Internet and Society}

\date{December 2, 1980}

\begin{document}

% remove some of the space in the itemize to make it quite compact
\let\olditemize\itemize
\renewcommand\itemize{\olditemize\itemsep-1pt}

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Introduction}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

%% SLIDE: Title Slide
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{frame}[plain]

  \begin{tikzpicture}
    \node at (current page.center) [xshift=-3.5cm, yshift=0.5cm, opacity=0.4]
      {\includegraphics[height=\paperheight]{figures/wikimedia_projects.png}};


    \node at (current page.south east)
    [anchor=south east,text width=1.8\paperwidth,align=right,color=black]
    {
      {\spaceskip 0.3em%
        \fontsize{2.5em}{2.5em}
        \selectfont {\bf \color{makopurple4} The State of Wikimedia\\
          Research: 2012-2013} \par}

      \vspace{1em}

      {\spaceskip 0.3em%
        \fontsize{2.0em}{2.1em}
        \selectfont {\bf \color{black} Benjamin Mako Hill\\
          Wikimania 2013, Hong Kong\\
          August 6, 2013} \par}

    };
  \end{tikzpicture}
  
  \input{vc}
  \tikz[overlay,shift=(current page.south west)]{\node [xshift=5.6em,yshift=0.5em]{\colorbox{makopurple1}{\color{white} \tt \smaller \smaller \smaller revision:\ \VCRevision\  (\VCDateTEX)}};}

  \note{I've been doing this for many years. I started in 2008 and
    skipped one year, I think.

    This began as an excuse for me to make sure I was up to date on
    Wikimedia Research.}

\end{frame}

%% SLIDE: Anecdote from Wikimania 2008
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\renewcommand{\quotetxt}{``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.''\\
  \hfill – \e{From my Wikimania 2008 Submission}}
\begin{frame}

  {\smaller \quotetxt}

  \pause
  \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/google_scholar_result.png}

  \pause
  \tikz{\draw (current page.center) [xshift=-2.1cm, yshift=0.9cm, color=red]
    ellipse (1.5cm and 0.5cm);}

  \note<1>{Back in Wikimania 2008, I set out to run a session at
    Wikimania that would provide a comprehensive literature review of
    articles in Wikipedia published in the last year.

    \begin{quote}
      \quotetxt
    \end{quote}

    Then, about two weeks before Wikimania, I did the scholar search
    so I could build the literature.}

  \note<2->{I tried to import the whole list into Zotero and managed
    to get banned for abusing the 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.
 
    And my talk is even shorter.}

\end{frame}

%% SLIDE: Citations Per Year
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{frame}

  \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/citations_by_year.pdf}

  \centering

  {\smaller \emph{Number of citation, per year, with the term
      “wikipedia” in the title.\\
      (Source: Google scholar results. Accessed: 2013-08-06)}}

  \note{Academics have written \e{a lot} of papers about
    Wikipedia. There are more than 500 papers published about
    Wikipedia each year and although we've reached a peak, it's not
    really slowing.

    We're on track this year to meet or surpass that.}

\end{frame}

% %% SLIDE: breakdown by time?
% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% \begin{frame}

%   \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/wikipeda_citations_bytime.png}
% \end{frame}


%% SLIDE: My Scope Conditions
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{frame}

  \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/multiple_issues.png}

  \larger \larger
  In selecting papers for this session, the goal is always to choose
  examples of work that:

  \begin{itemize}
  \larger \larger
  \item Represent \e{important themes} from Wikipedia in the last year.
  \item Research that is likely to be of \e{interest} to Wikimedians.
  \item Research by people who are \e{not at Wikimania}.
  \end{itemize}

  \note{This is my disclaimer slide...

  Within these goals, the selections are \e{incomplete}, and \e{wrong}.}
\end{frame}

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Paper Summaries}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\subsection{Wikipedia in Context}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

%% SLIDE: Reagle and Loveland Citation
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{frame}{Wikipedia in Historical Context}

  \larger \larger Loveland, Jeff, and Joseph Reagle. “Wikipedia and
  Encyclopedic Production.” \emph{New Media \& Society}
  (2013). DOI:10.1177/1461444812470428.

  \note{Jeff Loveland is a historian of encyclopedias. Joseph Reagle
    is a media studies scholar who wrote the first book length
    academic treatment of Wikipedia.

    Loveland heard about Reagle's book through an article in the
    Signpost but felt it was weak on history. So, they got together
    and put together a great piece of work that places Wikipedia into
    historical context.}
\end{frame}

%% SLIDE: Reagle and Loveland Overview
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{frame}{Wikipedia in Historical Context}

  \larger \larger \larger Loveland and Reagle cite three modes
  of encyclopedia production:

  \begin{itemize}
    \larger \larger \larger
    \item Compulsive collection
    \item Stigmergic accumluation
    \item Corporate production
  \end{itemize}

  In each case, they see a connection between Wikipedia and methods of
  the past.

  \note<1>{The authors identify three historical methods through which
    encyclopedias were written and they suggest that, in different
    ways, each plays a role in Wikipedia:

    \begin{itemize}
    \item \e{Compulsive collection} were people who were individually
      driven to collect information. Think Pliny the Elder. And then
      think Wikipediaholics and WikiBreak enforcing software.
    \item \e{Stigmergic accumulation} references the `stigmergy' is a
      word form Zoology that describes how wasps build nests and
      references accumulation. In the past, this meant piracy and
      building off of others. In Wikipedia, it means revision,
      incorporation of other sources, and more.
    \item \e{Corporate production} means working together with many
      other people. Diderot took advantage of at least 140 different
      authors. Think of the OED collecting information from
      others. Wikipedia of course uses a similar model.
    \end{itemize}

    In each case, they think that Wikipedia's model is not a total
    break from the past in the way many people talk about it.}

  \note<2>{\e{Takeaway:} But I think is a great example how much of the more humanities
    focused work on Wikipedia can do a wonderful job of providing us
    context and a better way to think about and talk about what we're
    doing.}

\end{frame}


\subsection{Wikipedia as Data Source}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

%% SLIDE: Citation
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{frame}{Wikipedia as a Data Source}

  \larger \larger 

  Sérasset, Giles. “Dbnary: Wiktionary as a LMF Based Multilingual RDF
  Network.” In \emph{Proceedings of the Eight International Conference on
    Language Resources and Evaluation}, 2012.

  \begin{center}
      \visible<2>{\url{http://dbnary.forge.imag.fr/}}
  \end{center}

  \note<1>{There's a whole genre of paper that is about Wikipedia only
    in that is uses WP as its dataset.  This might even be a
    \e{majority} of all papers published on Wikipedia.
    
    This paper up here, on a project called ``Dbnary'', is attempt to
    build a \e{lexical network} out of Wiktionary data. Essentially,
    they are using Wiktionary as a network of words and their
    relationships -- including definitions, translations, synonyms,
    antonyms, etc. -- in different languages, often connected through
    common etymologies.

    Lexical networks are are essential to a whole family of
    computerized natural language processing and a variety of
    linguistic projects.

    What I like about what Sérraseset did was that he created not only
    use it as a dataset but really did a bunch of work to make
    Wiktionary more useful to other resources.}

  \note<2>{The researcher has created an open source tool – available
    at the URL above.

    And anybody can use this tool, along with the dumps as published
    by WMF, to produce their own, on their computers, is about 5
    minutes.

    The paper also contains a list of challenges that Wiktionary
    contributors might be able to use to extract data more effectively
    in the future.

    \e{Takeaway:} I think that this paper suggests, like a lot of
    simliar work, how Wikipedia's effect is broader than just what
    comes through viewership on the web. And that there are important
    ways we might be able to work with researchers like this to become
    more effective.}

\end{frame}

\subsection{Wikipedia and Quality}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

%% SLIDE: Wikipedia and Quality Citation
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{frame}{Wikipedia and Quality}

  \larger \larger 

  Volsky, Peter G., Cristina M. Baldassari, Sirisha Mushti, and Craig
  S. Derkay. ``Quality of Internet Information in Pediatric
  Otolaryngology: A Comparison of Three Most Referenced Websites.''
  \emph{International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology} 76,
  no. 9 (September 2012): 1312–1316. DOI:10.1016/j.ijporl.2012.05.026.

  \note{There is little industry of articles designed to evaluate
    Wikipedia's quality. There are literally dozens of these each
    year.
    
    This is an example of one from pediatric otorhinolayrnology. That is,
    the study of dieases of the ear, nose, and throat -- in children.}

\end{frame}

%% SLIDE: Results
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{frame}{Wikipedia and Quality: Evaluation of Otolaryngology Articles}
  \smaller \smaller 
  \begin{columns}
    \column{0.53\textwidth}
    \centering

    \includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{figures/oto-content_accuracy.png}

    Accuracy as scored for content against a rubric\\
    developed from otolaryngology textbooks.

    \bigskip

    \includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{figures/oto-errors_omissions.png}

    Mean numbers of errors and omissions.

    \column{0.47\textwidth}
    \centering

    \includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{figures/oto_reading_level.png}

    Composite score for user interface.

    \bigskip

    \includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{figures/oto-user_interface.png}

    Flesch–Kinkaid Reading Level.    

  \end{columns}

  \bigskip

  {\centering
    {\larger WK=Wikipedia; ML=MedLinePlus; EM=eMedicine.}

  }

  \note{Like many of these studies, this study cmpares Wikipedia to
    other sites. In this case, eMedicine, and Medicine Plus. They used
    a series of textbooks and experts to evaluate the the content
    errors and they used some standard systems to evaluate usability
    and reading level.

    They find that Wikipedia has the most errors, the least accuracy,
    and a medium reading level. But in most cases it is similar to MedLinePlus.

    And Wikipedia had a rather good user interface compared to the
    others.

    I'm not sure what that says about the others user interface.

    \e{Takeaway:} We need to be better about getting these datsets and
    helping integrate these into improving the encyclopedia. One thing that frustrates me is that it's very rare
    that the people doing these studies coordinate with Wikipedia or that
    Wikipedians systematically reach out. At a minimum, we could try to collect a list of errors papers like this discover and correct them.}
\end{frame}

\subsection{Perception of Quality}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

%% SLIDE: Viewership
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{frame}{Viewership}

  \larger \larger Towne, W. Ben, Aniket Kittur, Peter Kinnaird, and
  James Herbsleb. “Your Process Is Showing: Controversy Management and
  Perceived Quality in Wikipedia.” In \emph{Proceedings of the 2013
  Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work}, 1059–1068. CSCW
  ’13. New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2013. DI:10.1145/2441776.2441896.

  \note{A group at Carnegie Mellon put together a really nice piece
    that tried to surface Wikipedia's talk pages. Now, as many of you
    will know intuitive, a majority of Wikipededia's work happens on
    talk pages are invisible to many users. What would happen if we
    made this more visible?}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}{Perception of Quality: Towne et al.}

  \larger \larger
  ``Laws, like sausages, cease to inspire respect in proportion
  as we know how they are made.''\\
  \hfill -- John G.  Saxe,

  \begin{itemize}
    \larger \larger
  \item<2-> Discussion $\Rightarrow$ Lower Ratings
  \item<3-> Unresolved conflict $\Rightarrow$ Even lower ratings
  \item<4-> Discussion $\Rightarrow$ Higher reported preception of
    Wikipedia and article!
  \end{itemize}

  \note{The goal was to test this theory in Wikipedia.

    An experiment, on Mechanical Turk, to show people Wikipedia
    articles and also to show them the talk pages. Then then asked
    people to rate the articles, and their perception of the article
    and of Wikipedia.

    \begin{itemize}
    \item When discussion is shown, quality rating were significantly lower.
    \item When discussion involving conflict was displayed, article
      quality ratings were even lower yet.
    \item If the editors involved in the conflict resolved it
      through a positive collaboration approach, the negative
      effects of conflict disappeared.
    \item Participants reported that reading the discussion raised
      their perceptions of both the article’s quality and Wikipedia
      in general. (i.e., they were not aware of the rating-lowering
      effects of the discussion.)
    \end{itemize}

    \e{Takeaway:} There's a deep and interesting tradeoff that cuts to
    the core of Wikimedia's two missions to empower folks by getting
    involved in the process to display material. This kind of work
    explores big important questions at the heart of the foundation's
    work.}

\end{frame}

\subsection{Tool Building for Wikipedians}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

%% SLIDE: Tool Building for Wikipedians
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{frame}{Tool Building for Wikipedians}

  \larger \larger Solorio, Thamar, Ragib Hasan, and Mainul Mizan. ``A
  Case Study of Sockpuppet Detection in Wikipedia.'' In
  \emph{Proceedings of the Workshop on Language in Social Media},
  59–68. Atlanta, Georgia, USA: Association for Computational
  Linguistics, 2013.

  \note<1>{This is paper from a computational linguistics conference. And
    they set out to create a method to identify sockpuppets in
    Wikipedia.
    
    There's a little academic industry designed to detect authorship
    across texts and alias. But one problem that literature has is
    that they almost no data of people \e{trying} to hide their
    identity where the identity was later confirmed.

    Wikipedia has no such problem. There were more than 2,700 cases of
    suspected sock-puppeting in Wikipedia in 2012 alone.}

  \note<2>{They use a database of confirmed (with checkuser) and rejected
    cases of sockpuppeting to train a machine learning based approach
    to classify edits.

    The system achieved an accuracy of 68.83\% in the tested cases.

    This is not very good because simply always confirming the
    suspected sockpuppet abuse would have achieved 53.24\% accuracy.

    After adding features based on the user's edit frequency by time
    of day and day of the week, it achieved 84.04\% confidence.

    The authors have ideas of creating a system that could run in the
    background and detect sockpuppets. But even if that never happens,
    community members have done similar work in the past. And this
    represents a set of tools and techniques from which the community
    could directly benefit.

    \e{Takeaway:} Again, we need to get better about working with all the
    people, like this, building tools for our communities.}


\end{frame}


\subsection{Effects of Feedback}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

%% SLIDE: Effects of Feedback Citation
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{frame}{Effects of Feedback}

  \larger \larger Zhu, Haiyi, Amy Zhang, Jiping He, Robert Kraut, and Aniket
  Kittur. ``Effects of Peer Feedback on Contribution: A Field
  Experiment in Wikipedia.'' In \emph{Proceedings of the SIGCHI
    Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems}. Paris, France:
  ACM, 2013.

  \note{There have been a whole bunch of studies which have looked at
    the effects of feedback on contribution to Wikipedia. Reverts,
    welcome messages, et. And they have shown a series of effects.

    But one concern with this work is that it is not causal. People
    who receive negative messages are often behaving differently than
    people who do not.

    This reflects a real experiment, done in Wikipedia, where
    different types of feedback were randomly assigned.

    In August-November 2011, they left feedback for 703 creators of
    new articles in Wikipedia after at least two days and making sure
    the article had a certain amount of content and had not been
    tagged for speedy deletion.}

\end{frame}

%% SLIDE: Effects of Feedback Figures
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{frame}{Effects of Feedback: Zhu et al.}
  \centering

  \includegraphics[height=0.85\textheight]{figures/shared_leadership-figures.pdf}

  \note{They left four kinds of feedback: positive, negative,
    directive, and social.

    And they were interested in both the effect on editing in the new
    article they mention and on general editing on Wikipedia.

    Feedback had no effect at all on experienced contributors. At
    all. This was surpising to the folks running the study but maybe
    not to the folks in this room.

    In newbies, they found that negative feedback and directive
    feedback had a positive effect on editing in the focal article and
    positive feedback had a effect on general editing (but not the
    article in question). And they found no other effects.

    \e{Takeaway:} We should learn from and improve our processes based
    on studies like these. We should work with researchers to do more
    experiments. There are important ethical implications. There was a
    long section of the paper about talking to the research ctte and
    others.}

\end{frame}


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Conclusion}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

%% SLIDE: Other Resources
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{frame}{More Resources}

  \begin{itemize}
    \larger \larger \larger
  \item \e{Wikimedia Research Newsletter} [[:meta:Research:Newsletter]]
  \item \e{WikiSym} (Last week in Hong Kong!)
  \item \e{WikiPapers Repository} [http://wikipapers.referata.com]
  \item \e{Much More}
  \end{itemize}

  \note{Those are my six exemplary studies from the past year. 

    There has been just tons and tons of work in this area. Trying to
    talk about this in 20 minutes strikes me as increasingly crazy
    every year I try to do it.

    The most important source, now going for a couple years, is the
    Wikimedia Research Newsletter which is published monthly in the (English)
    Signpost.

    But there are other resources as well. And I encourage you to get
    involved.}

\end{frame}

\end{document}