finished version of talk for presentation

[state_of_wikimedia_research_2013] / 20130809-wikimania_research.tex

diff --git a/20130809-wikimania_research.tex b/20130809-wikimania_research.tex
index 58bb0798fdbf505eee4b97d9c286eb2e245bb4ae..f7e49934f0b1d3e329d1905d83e211334b37f055 100644 (file)
--- a/20130809-wikimania_research.tex
+++ b/20130809-wikimania_research.tex
@@ -248,7 +248,7 @@
     So anyway, I had a 45 minute talk so it worked out to 3.45 seconds
     to per paper...
 
     So anyway, I had a 45 minute talk so it worked out to 3.45 seconds
     to per paper...
 

-    And believe it or, this year is even bigger.
+    And believe it or not, this year is even bigger.

  
     And my talk is even shorter.}
 
  
     And my talk is even shorter.}
 


@@ -300,9 +300,9 @@
   \item Research by people who are \e{not at Wikimania}.
   \end{itemize}
 
   \item Research by people who are \e{not at Wikimania}.
   \end{itemize}
 

-  Within these goals, the selections are \e{incomplete}, and \e{wrong}.
+  \note{This is my disclaimer slide...

 
 

-  \note{This is my disclaimer slide...}
+  Within these goals, the selections are \e{incomplete}, and \e{wrong}.}

 \end{frame}
 
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 \end{frame}
 
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%


@@ -340,7 +340,7 @@
   \begin{itemize}
     \larger \larger \larger
     \item Compulsive collection
   \begin{itemize}
     \larger \larger \larger
     \item Compulsive collection

-    \item Stigmertic accumluative
+    \item Stigmergic accumluation

     \item Corporate production
   \end{itemize}
 
     \item Corporate production
   \end{itemize}
 


@@ -360,22 +360,20 @@
       references accumulation. In the past, this meant piracy and
       building off of others. In Wikipedia, it means revision,
       incorporation of other sources, and more.
       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 productin} means working together with many
+    \item \e{Corporate production} means working together with many

       other people. Diderot took advantage of at least 140 different
       other people. Diderot took advantage of at least 140 different

-      authors. Think the OED collecting information from
+      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
       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 abou it.}
+    break from the past in the way many people talk about it.}

 
 

-  \note<2>{Now my own bias as a reseacher is to look to more
-    quantitative or easy to apply work.
-
-    \e{Takeaway:} But I think is a great example how much of the more humanities
+  \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.}
     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}
 
 
 \end{frame}
 
 


@@ -384,7 +382,7 @@
 
 %% SLIDE: Citation
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 
 %% SLIDE: Citation
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

-\begin{frame}{Wikipedia as Data Source}
+\begin{frame}{Wikipedia as a Data Source}

 
   \larger \larger 
 
 
   \larger \larger 
 


@@ -451,12 +449,9 @@
 
   \note{There is little industry of articles designed to evaluate
     Wikipedia's quality. There are literally dozens of these each
 
   \note{There is little industry of articles designed to evaluate
     Wikipedia's quality. There are literally dozens of these each

-    year. And one that thing that frustrates me is that its very rare
-    that the people doing these coordinate with Wikipedia or that
-    Wikipedians systematically reach out to the people doing these to
-    learn.
-
-    This is an example of one from pediatric otolayrnology. That is,
+    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}
     the study of dieases of the ear, nose, and throat -- in children.}
 
 \end{frame}


@@ -503,13 +498,13 @@
   }
 
   \note{Like many of these studies, this study cmpares Wikipedia to
   }
 
   \note{Like many of these studies, this study cmpares Wikipedia to

-    other sites. In this case, eMedicne, and Medicine Plus. They used
+    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,
     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,

-    aa medium reading level. But similar in most cases to MedLinePlus.
+    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.
 
     And Wikipedia had a rather good user interface compared to the
     others.


@@ -517,15 +512,17 @@
     I'm not sure what that says about the others user interface.
 
     \e{Takeaway:} We need to be better about getting these datsets and
     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.}
+    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}
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 
 \end{frame}
 
 \subsection{Perception of Quality}
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 

-%% SLIDE: Perception of Quality
+%% SLIDE: Viewership

 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

-\begin{frame}{Perception of Quality}
+\begin{frame}{Viewership}

 
   \larger \larger Towne, W. Ben, Aniket Kittur, Peter Kinnaird, and
   James Herbsleb. “Your Process Is Showing: Controversy Management and
 
   \larger \larger Towne, W. Ben, Aniket Kittur, Peter Kinnaird, and
   James Herbsleb. “Your Process Is Showing: Controversy Management and


@@ -565,20 +562,20 @@
     \begin{itemize}
     \item When discussion is shown, quality rating were significantly lower.
     \item When discussion involving conflict was displayed, article
     \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.
+      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
     \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

-      effect of the discussion, and generally.)
+      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
     \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 foundations
+    explores big important questions at the heart of the foundation's

     work.}
 
 \end{frame}
     work.}
 
 \end{frame}


@@ -626,7 +623,7 @@
     represents a set of tools and techniques from which the community
     could directly benefit.
 
     represents a set of tools and techniques from which the community
     could directly benefit.
 

-    \e{Takeaway:} We need to get better about working with all the
+    \e{Takeaway:} Again, we need to get better about working with all the

     people, like this, building tools for our communities.}
 
 
     people, like this, building tools for our communities.}
 
 


@@ -711,15 +708,15 @@
   \item \e{Much More}
   \end{itemize}
 
   \item \e{Much More}
   \end{itemize}
 

-  \note{Those are my six postcards. 
+  \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
 
     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
-    signpost.
+    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.}
 
     But there are other resources as well. And I encourage you to get
     involved.}