IRC office hours/Office hours 2016-05-26 (2)
[19:00:41] <krmaher> Hi everyone, great to be here. Looking forward to your questions.
[19:00:56] <ShakespeareFan00> Can I start things off
[19:01:09] <krmaher> please.
[19:01:14] <pearley> Sure, ShakespeareFan00
[19:01:44] <Maggie_Dennis> Anyone is welcome to throw out questions, by the way. We will triage them and re-present when Katherine is finished with the last.
[19:01:57] <ShakespeareFan00> It was reported on the BBC today that Wikipedia was supposedly backing the "Reclaim the Internet" campaign... What is this, and what is the extent of the Foundation's Involvment?
[19:02:06] <ShakespeareFan00> (Sorry If I sound like Question Time ;) )
[19:02:11] <Maggie_Dennis> Do you have a link, ShakespeareFan00?
[19:02:22] <Maggie_Dennis> I'm not familiar with that article myself.
[19:02:44] <ShakespeareFan00> I have some coverage in the Guardian - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/25/yvette-cooper-leads-cross-party-campaign-against-online-abuse
[19:02:47] <Maggie_Dennis> Thanks!
[19:03:07] <ShakespeareFan00> http://www.reclaimtheinternet.com/
[19:03:11] <foks> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36380247
[19:03:21] <ShakespeareFan00> Wikipedia was mentioned in a broadcast article...
[19:03:53] <ShakespeareFan00> (I assume they actually meant Wikipedia/Wikimedia jointly without actually saying , a common journalistic oversight)
[19:04:03] <tom29739> There's nothing online.
[19:04:24] <tom29739> More people will understand 'Wikipedia', versus 'Wikimedia'
[19:04:25] <krmaher> Thanks for bringing this to our attention - I don't actually believe we've been approached about this yet.
[19:04:53] <krmaher> We'll be certain to take a look at it, and whether there's an appropriate role for us to play in their efforts.
[19:05:09] <Pine> Question for the queue. What are the WMF plans to grow the population of active content contributors, outside of the work being done with ORES and related tools?
[19:05:46] <krmaher> I suspect it would depend on the nature of the goals and whether it would have a tangible impact for our community vs. raising awareness more generally.
[19:05:48] <ShakespeareFan00> the WMF has backed iniatives over whats been termed the gender "gap" IIRC, but as I don't usally get involved in wiki-politics stuff
[19:06:24] <ShakespeareFan00> The mention of Wikipedia I got in relation to it was in a broadcast article this morning, which suprised me
[19:06:39] <HaeB> i_jethrobot, to your question (sorry, i was afk): the analytics team - which, like i said, gets the credits for coming up with this new metric - wrote a blog post explaining the methodology behind it: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/03/30/unique-devices-dataset/
[19:06:59] * Pine wonders if he's allowed to comment to ShakespeareFan00
[19:07:05] <Maggie_Dennis> Pine, of course!
[19:07:07] <ShakespeareFan00> krmaher: Do you think 'reclaiming' the internet is something worthwhile
[19:07:27] <ShakespeareFan00> Pine: Don't feel there's a formal chair here , I don't think things work that way
[19:08:27] <ShakespeareFan00> Pine: Go ahead :)
[19:08:47] <Pine> ShakespeareFan00: speaking generally, harassment and incivility are known problems. WMF is working on solutions, including a new anti-harassment campaign in IdeaLab. I know that doesn't address the question of this specific campaign, but the broad issue is certainly one of concern. Among other problems, these issues likely cause harms to individuals as well as to the number and diversity of...
[19:08:49] <Pine> ...Wikimedia content contributors.
[19:09:00] <krmaher> I'm not sure the internet was ever "claimed" per se, but I do believe that there we have significant challenges ahead in terms of making it an inclusive, engaging, creative place for all, as its original promise seemed to be.
[19:09:09] <krmaher> sorry, that was to ShakespeareFan00
[19:09:51] <Pine> ShakespeareFan00: if you'd like to discuss this further or have ideas, I'd encourage you to get involved in the IdeaLab campaign, either by contributing a suggestion or commenting on others' suggestions.
[19:10:42] <ShakespeareFan00> I'm probably not the best person to comment on such issues, I have rather strong views, and have been mistaken for being a feminist many times XD
[19:10:45] <WereSplchqrs> @Shakespearfan considering the trolling campaign that provoked this I doubt we are high on the list of sites that reclaim the Internet worries about. Afterall we delete attack pages quite quickly.
[19:11:02] <debt> can someone post the link to the youtube/hangout for office hours?
[19:11:13] <krmaher> Hi Pine, if I can clarify a bit - your question is related to how the Foundation plans to grow the size of the contributor community, and their engagement with the projects?
[19:11:20] <Pine> ShakespeareFan00: your opinions might still be useful. :) In case you're interested: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-May/084289.html
[19:11:30] <ShakespeareFan00> Pine : Thanks
[19:12:04] <Pine> krmaher: I'd rather avoid the term engagement because it's a bit broad. Let me instead use "active editor" under the usual 5+ definition :)
[19:12:31] <pearley> debt: this office hours session is on IRC only.
[19:12:32] <Pine> What are the plans to grow that population, outside of ORES?
[19:12:40] <ShakespeareFan00> A related issuse is on how best to encourage content contribution in areas that reflect diversity, rather than presenting a biased sterotype of what some privliged group feels is needed.
[19:12:49] <debt> pearley: thanks - that's why I couldn't find a link ;)
[19:14:14] <i_jethrobot> ShakespeareFan00: Some ideas advanced in IdeaLab and proposals in our grant programs begin to address that issue.
[19:14:32] <krmaher> Pine, the plans for the year for contributor engagement are detailed in the Annual Plan - rather than one single project, we're taking more of a portfolio approach - tackling issues like improved tooling for contributors, addressing the overall contribution environment, enhancing support for successful community programs such as GLAM, etc.
[19:15:01] <krmaher> You can find the details here, but I'm happy to answer any more specific questions: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2016-2017/draft
[19:15:38] <ShakespeareFan00> Thanks , that's my first question answered...
[19:15:44] <Pine> OK, thanks. I told Maggie_Dennis that I was going to read that plan but haven't sat down to read it thoroughly. I'll do that and get back to you (or someone) later if I have questions. :)
[19:15:49] * Pine needs to run.
[19:15:51] <Pine> Thank you!
[19:15:53] <ShakespeareFan00> I have some others, but want to give others a chnace to ask theirs
[19:15:58] <Maggie_Dennis> Good to see you, Pine!
[19:16:02] <i_jethrobot> ShakespeareFan00: For instance, see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Engaging_Native_American_Communities or https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Wikipedia_African_Academy
[19:16:06] <WereSplchqrs> @Pine Unless we can make Wikipdia easily editable on a smartphone, or more realistically the fashion changes and something replaces the smartphone, I suspect we need to get used to a different ratio of readers to editors.
[19:16:46] <krmaher> We've found that setting high level, broad targets (e.g., increase active editors by 5%) needs to be supported by specific projects with better defined targets. Otherwise it's hard to connect efforts with the top level numbers, which can be discouraging and make it difficult to identify projects or initiatives with traction.
[19:17:01] <tom29739> Mobile is too limited, I can't have Twinkle, etc.
[19:17:05] <krmaher> Bye Pine!
[19:17:18] <i_jethrobot> Take care, Pine. Thanks for joining us.
[19:17:25] <tom29739> Desktop is the other way, it's too heavy on my phone.
[19:17:30] <tom29739> Bye Pine.
[19:18:12] <pearley> ShakespeareFan00: Feel free to ask, we can add them to the queue if we get others ..
[19:18:15] <foks> He already left. :)
[19:19:12] <krmaher> Other questions?
[19:19:17] <WereSplchqrs> @Tom29739 do you think there is scope for a mobile platform targeted at mobile editors?
[19:19:25] <J-Mo> can someone pass me the link to the YouTube stream and/or Hangout?
[19:19:35] <foks> J-Mo, IRC-only. :)
[19:19:46] <ShakespeareFan00> pearly : Question: What efforts are being made in respect of images of sexuality across projects, which have proved controversial in the past? It would be nice to have an offical policy view on this from WMF possibly backed up by Legal?
[19:20:06] <J-Mo> ah, I see. Thanks!
[19:20:08] <JoshM_> WereSplchqrs: perhaps editing and curation processes on mobile will take different forms, rather than not happening at all
[19:20:13] <tom29739> WereSplchqrs, yes, but it's wayy too limited at the moment.
[19:20:19] <tom29739> The app is even worse...
[19:20:46] <ShakespeareFan00> pearly: I have slightly more conservative views than some people and would welcome an official policy disscussion being started.
[19:21:00] <ajr> WRT mobile editing, this is something that the Foundation should be looking closely at. The global south tends to interact with Wikimedia projects more from mobile devices, so expanding that functionality
[19:21:10] <ajr> is key to engaging that demographic further.
[19:21:21] <tom29739> The only advantage of the app is that it doesn't close and reload when I go onto another app on my phone. The web one just closes amd I lose all my work.
[19:21:25] <tom29739> *and
[19:21:25] <ShakespeareFan00> ajr: Mobile needs a different design
[19:21:37] <tom29739> Mobile needs a whole rewrite.
[19:21:51] <ShakespeareFan00> from the main site...
[19:21:52] <jorm> i think the apps need to die in a fire.
[19:22:01] <WereSplchqrs> @Joshm I know some can edit on smartphones, not me my thumbs are too big, the proportion of readers who will edit is lower. Though respect to those who can edit on mobile.
[19:22:05] <ajr> Hah.
[19:22:16] <ShakespeareFan00> Also some people want a sound-bite encylopedia over a Britanica mega opus...
[19:22:18] <ajr> For what it's worth, I think Wikipedia Zero is a fantastic initiative and I'm happy to see it being expanded.
[19:22:36] <jorm> the fact that resources are being spent on closed-system toys rather than improving the mobile web is baffling to me.
[19:22:37] <tom29739> Add my mobile provider please :D
[19:22:56] <i_jethrobot> tom29739: Hah :P
[19:23:07] <ShakespeareFan00> krmaher: The concern arose because of widely inconsistent application of policy at Commons sometimes
[19:23:09] <krmaher> ShakespeareFan00 ToU here: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use
[19:23:11] <tom29739> '<jorm> the fact that resources are being spent on closed-system toys rather than improving the mobile web is baffling to me' - discovery comes to mind....
[19:24:07] <ajr> Agreed. I know in my experience, there tends to be a lot of focus on the English Wikipedia from the WMF. And there should be; it is by far the most successful project.
[19:24:20] <ajr> But within the scope of the broader mission, I think more needs to be done with other language versions as well.
[19:24:25] <JoshM_> wow, is there a real "question" you have there for kmaher and this channel? Or just an agenda to advance with extreme terms like "die in a fire"?
[19:24:49] <ajr> And supporting other projects which have potential - Commons, Wikidata (supported by WMDE), perhaps even Wikivoyage.
[19:25:21] <tom29739> JoshM_, there's nothing wrong with discussion.
[19:25:41] <ShakespeareFan00> And I'm thinking perhaps there should be a Foundation level policy about what is and isn't accceptable in terms of images of sexuality that are otherwise legal
[19:25:45] <ajr> I guess a specific question would be "What are the WMF's plans to expand mobile platforms to better engage and expand into the global south?"
[19:26:03] <JoshM_> "die in a fire" is not a discussion
[19:26:04] <ShakespeareFan00> (Stuff that's illegal would already be removed , and no-ones disputing that)
[19:26:23] <ShakespeareFan00> JoshM_: No one said that
[19:26:25] <WereSplchqrs> @Shakespearfan keeping legal re images of sexuality is important. There is also the principle of least surprise which should govern their use.
[19:26:46] <ShakespeareFan00> WereSplchqrs: Agreed
[19:27:08] <ShakespeareFan00> But they should be supporting content, some of the stuff on Commones is unused...
[19:27:23] <krmaher> Hi ajr, the Foundation has a project we're calling "New Readers" which you can read more about here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/New_Readers
[19:27:49] <ShakespeareFan00> WereSplchqrs: One concern arises were jurisdictions interact...
[19:27:50] <WereSplchqrs> Most stuff on Commons is currently unused, not unusual for a media library.
[19:28:32] <ShakespeareFan00> True... but there's little point in hosting material which would be better suited on specialist archives better in tune with certain requirmennts
[19:28:35] <ajr> krmaher, thanks. I hadn't heard of that before, but that looks like a very good first step.
[19:28:44] <ShakespeareFan00> Like model releases which Commons doesn't currently ask for
[19:28:48] <krmaher> ajr: The New Readers project is a cross-departmental effort to better understand the needs of users in countries with low Wikimedia usage/awareness for their overall connectivity rates, and design appropriate programatic or product efforts that can help meet their needs.
[19:28:59] <krmaher> ajr: we're also working to deprecate the term Global South :)
[19:29:13] <ShakespeareFan00> Sorry to speak my mind
[19:29:25] <ajr> Developing world? Sorry, might not be up-to-date on the "PC" terms for that
[19:29:30] <krmaher> ajr: thanks - we'd welcome any further thoughts you have on the talk page, the team working on the project is very open to feedback.
[19:29:33] <ShakespeareFan00> I don't have an issue with 'images of sexuality' PROVIDED there is actually some context...
[19:29:54] <heatherw> ajr: it's not about PC terms, it's about being more precise
[19:29:55] <ShakespeareFan00> Putting up the Not Censored arugment automatically (which is what some people do) isn't helpful
[19:29:57] <YuviPanda> krmaher: yay for deprecating the term Global South, I can discontinue my 'drink everytime someone says Global South' game! \o/
[19:30:18] <Maggie_Dennis> ShakespeareFan00, speaking your mind is welcome. :)
[19:30:29] <ShakespeareFan00> and hence the request for an official list of what's considered unacceptable (beyond legal requirements obviously)
[19:30:45] <ajr> That makes sense I guess, considering there is no universal north/south divide. Though of course the general trends do hold.
[19:31:02] <ajr> (relevant reading at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North%E2%80%93South_divide )
[19:31:02] <krmaher> ajr: it's more about moving away from those terms generally, and get more intentional about how any categories we use benefit our work.
[19:31:07] <Maggie_Dennis> ShakespeareFan00, peaking for myself on not the WMF, I think one of the problems we have as a movement is that acceptable varies widely depending on where you are.
[19:31:14] <Maggie_Dennis> speaking
[19:31:23] <ShakespeareFan00> As I was saying, there's also the issue of interacting jurisdicitions... Wikimedia generally follows US community standards
[19:31:50] <Maggie_Dennis> Some Wikipedias are very focused on their own standards, however.
[19:31:57] <ShakespeareFan00> But you have places like the UK, that have bannned certain images of sexuality even though they are consenual and nominally legal in the US
[19:32:21] <ShakespeareFan00> There is also the unresolved issue of 2257 (?)
[19:33:02] <ShakespeareFan00> There being a rarely used template on Commons which attempts to explain the position at Commons, perhaps not clearly enough
[19:33:33] <ShakespeareFan00> If Commons asked for Model releases and OTRS 2257 and so on would be less of an issue
[19:33:44] <ShakespeareFan00> (and by Commons, I mean WMF etc...)
[19:33:58] <Maggie_Dennis> In terms of acceptability (outside the boundary of the law), that's likely a conversation that will have to have broad conversations across the movement.
[19:34:21] <ShakespeareFan00> And hence I was suggesting there was a Foundation iniatied consultation on it.
[19:34:51] <Maggie_Dennis> I don't think there's been a broad call for us to lead this conversation.
[19:35:07] <pearley> Any other questions from the room for Katherine?
[19:35:08] <WereSplchqrs> Re low internet access rates, has anyone worked out how long new internet users typically take to use and or edit Wikipedia? There used to be a rule of thumb that it took two years from goining online to buying online. It would be good to workout what the typical lag is for us.
[19:35:16] <ajr> Not at all, it's a very niche issue. Honestly, it's more a question for the commons community than for here.
[19:35:43] <ShakespeareFan00> I sometimes feel the Foundation should ocassionlay take the lead in an area where the community is NOT voicing concerns...
[19:35:56] <ShakespeareFan00> .. but a top-down approach has it's own disadvanatges
[19:36:01] <ajr> Yes, and they do. But there are probably other questions and topics to discuss now.
[19:36:35] <ShakespeareFan00> Okay, I've said my 2 miniutes worth on that topic... Time to let others speak
[19:37:20] <ori> WereSplchqrs: https://grafana.wikimedia.org/dashboard/db/navigation-timing-by-geolocation
[19:37:50] <ori> that shows page load times in different places around the world. We don't currently have a breakdown of page save time by geolocation, because page save time tends to be dominated by backend processing time, which is the same regardless of the user's location.
[19:37:51] <krmaher> WereSplchqrs Speculating, but that rule of thumb was probably more helpful when the internet was concentrated in high-access, high-wealth countries. I suspect that the research we're doing in the priority countries in the New Readers project will probably unearth more dissimilarities among countries than similarities, but perhaps some interesting
[19:37:51] <krmaher> consistencies across smaller subsegments (e.g., broken out by socio-economic or other demographic characteristics)
[19:38:07] <WereSplchqrs> How is the new rapd grants system going to overlap with the chapters, especially if hte rapid grants will pay for things that chapers won't such as food at meetups? https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Rapid
[19:38:44] <Amir1> Sorry for stepping too late, ORES was mentioned here. As a member of ORES team. I need to say ORES is designed to be a backbone of using AI in Wikimedia which includes from fighting vandalism to research and analysis. "Engaging more editor" wasn't one of its direct goal AFAIK
[19:39:19] <Amir1> I think halfak and Pine need to talk :)
[19:39:44] <ori> WereSplchqrs: (sorry, I realize now I misunderstood what you were asking for.)
[19:39:55] <krmaher> That's a good question WereSplchqrs, I'm going to suggest that is one for the talk page on how that works in practice. I trust that the Resources team has been thinking about it, but I wouldn't quite be able to answer at this point.
[19:40:38] <i_jethrobot> WereSplchqrs: I can speak a little to that question, but posing that on the talk page would be best to get a full answer.
[19:40:41] <WereSplchqrs> Thanks krmaher and thanks ori
[19:40:49] <RoanKattouw> Amir1, Pine: My team (Collaboration) is looking into using ORES to help people who review edits, fight vandalism and mentor newcomers to be more productive
[19:41:07] <RoanKattouw> That's sort of our "Annual Plan mission", if you will, for this year
[19:41:37] <RoanKattouw> This coming quarter we'll start with trying to make it easier for people who are interested in mentoring new editors who appear to be editing in good faith but making mistakes to find those editors
[19:41:58] <Amir1> RoanKattouw: Thanks for the clarification. I would be more than happy to collaborate.
[19:42:18] <pearley> Any more questions for KMaher? We're getting to the last 15 mins for this session ...
[19:42:19] <halfak_> ^ +1
[19:42:21] <Amir1> What you say can be fairly easily by ORES status right now
[19:42:41] <Amir1> *easily done
[19:42:57] <RoanKattouw> And we're also discussing things like using ORES to provide a stream of edits that are likely vandalism so that vandalism fighters have a "cleaner" stream to work with
[19:43:16] <RoanKattouw> Amir1: Yeah we've been talking to halfak about these ideas a lot :)
[19:43:27] <halfak_> :)
[19:43:39] <halfak_> Amir1, I've been pitching a new page spam/vandalism detector too.
[19:43:41] <Amir1> RoanKattouw: yeah, we are building the ORES extension
[19:43:58] <halfak_> I bet we can build a high fitness model on new pages -- much higher than the edit based model.
[19:44:01] <Amir1> likely to be deployed soon
[19:44:04] <halfak_> Given more data/signal
[19:44:08] <RoanKattouw> Oh, interesting
[19:44:12] <foks> Any further questions for Katherine?
[19:44:18] <halfak_> I demoed that briefly in a recent meeting.
[19:44:19] <RoanKattouw> That would be cool to use for NPP/PageTriage
[19:44:25] <Amir1> halfak_: yeah, let's run some stats
[19:44:35] <RoanKattouw> Sorry, not meaning to hijack Katherine's office hour here :)
[19:44:38] <i_jethrobot> WereSplchqrs: We're building a page listing all grants offered by chapters/affiliates to let applicants know about opportunities for funding from these orgs, and will encourage applicants to check there first. Getting funds locally is usually easier, after all.
[19:45:10] <Amir1> let's continue discussion in #wikimedia-ai
[19:45:19] <halfak_> +1
[19:45:23] * halfak_ goes to -ai
[19:45:40] <krmaher> No worries RoanKattouw, I suspect people found it interesting. (Also, we have an AI chat channel?)
[19:45:53] <RoanKattouw> Yeah I found out about that channel recently :)
[19:45:54] <foks> krmaher, it mostly just speaks to itself.
[19:46:06] * krmaher laughs
[19:46:34] <i_jethrobot> WereSplchqrs: Our main goal is not to hamper affiliates' abilities to fund projects and events, but we do want to offer options if folks need support for their projects.
[19:46:37] <RoanKattouw> It's less exciting than it might sound, mostly Amir1 and ops people wrangling the deployment of ORES to our production web sites
[19:47:03] <RoanKattouw> We have channels where bots talk to each other but I don't think that happens in -ai sadly
[19:47:07] <jorm> everything is less exciting than it sounds.
[19:47:26] <Amir1> :D
[19:47:32] <Amir1> jorm: +1
[19:47:45] <Maggie_Dennis> Some things are MORE exciting than they sound: like myocardial infarction!
[19:47:50] <heatherw> !!
[19:48:03] <WereSplchqrs> @ Jethrobot, I was interested in the overlap but also that there were things this would fund that chapters wouldnt.
[19:48:07] <krmaher> aka, heart attack?
[19:48:10] <Maggie_Dennis> Well, it's not an inherently exciting term. :P
[19:48:10] <jorm> i was going to make a similar joke only go with "gunfire"
[19:48:21] <Maggie_Dennis> There you go, jorm. Trumps my heart attack :)
[19:48:36] <heatherw> Trump is also my heart attack
[19:48:39] * jorm Trumps.
[19:48:44] * jorm Makes American Great Again.
[19:48:58] <jorm> Make the WMF great again.
[19:49:04] <jorm> that should be the slogan now.
[19:49:20] <heatherw> Congrats K4-713!
[19:49:23] <krmaher> Let's stay away from U.S. politics for... another 11 minutes? She entreats.
[19:49:46] * Maggie_Dennis schedules "US Politics" office hour for T-12 minutes
[19:49:55] <jorm> what are we 'congrats' ing?
[19:50:18] <K4-713> heatherw: Thanks! :)
[19:50:46] <K4-713> jorm: Oh hi!
[19:51:20] <jorm> howdy katie!
[19:51:43] <jorm> Oh! I was just told.
[19:51:48] <jorm> Congratulations!
[19:51:58] <pearley> Let's do Canadian politics instead please. Less than 10mins for Katherine questions!
[19:52:12] <ajr> elbows out, everyone
[19:52:13] <ajr> :D
[19:52:15] <tom29739> No, UK politics.
[19:52:18] <tom29739> :D
[19:52:19] <jorm> i have many questions but i doubt they'd be helpful at this point in time.
[19:52:24] <jorm> in a year, maybe.
[19:52:34] <i_jethrobot> WereSplchqrs: My guess is that if you present a general kind of case (e.g. someone gets funding for an event, but not the food, could they apply for the Rapid Grant to get food?), you could get a definitive answer on the Rapid Grants talk page.
[19:52:35] <bawolff> pearley: That Justin is just so dreamy ;)
[19:52:38] <Maggie_Dennis> Questions that can be answered within 8 minutes most especially welcome. :)
[19:52:39] <i_jethrobot> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:Project/Rapid
[19:52:43] <K4-713> jorm: Thanks. Nice to see you around. :)
[19:52:50] <heatherw> jorm: Good call :)
[19:52:56] <krmaher> I hear he's coming to Wikimania Montreal.
[19:52:59] <i_jethrobot> WereSplchqrs: I'm not in a position to answer that specifically, though (sorry!)
[19:53:04] * krmaher spreads rumors.
[19:53:19] <pajz> (What is your interpretation of the lack of questions?)
[19:53:23] <ajr> Oh, I do have one more quick question.
[19:53:34] <Maggie_Dennis> pajz, this is common towards the end of office hours. :)
[19:53:39] <ajr> Is anything being done right now to study patterns of community governance, at a more academic level through funding etc?
[19:54:05] * i_jethrobot looks through Research namespace on meta...
[19:54:07] <pajz> Maggie_Dennis, I see.
[19:54:14] <ajr> Understanding how wiki communities organize themselves, and being able to reference real data and research on the topic would be very helpful.
[19:54:42] <halfak_> ajr, there's a pretty big body of literature on wiki governance patterns.
[19:54:47] <jorm> wiki communities don't really organize any different than other online communities.
[19:54:48] <halfak_> I can share some of my favorites.
[19:54:57] <jorm> though, nearly every type of online community thinks they are different.
[19:55:10] <ajr> jorm, I don't mean to suggest that they do.
[19:55:12] <bawolff> Kind of like countries that way
[19:55:22] <ajr> But there too, some actual studies suggesting that is the case would be useful.
[19:55:26] <WereSplchqrs> Do we have a process to watch for wiki communities that have become disfunctional but still active?
[19:55:30] <halfak_> jorm, I disagree. Wikipedia has needed to mature in a lot of ways that other communities have not.
[19:55:50] <ajr> WereSplchqrs, that is mainly done at the community level, and it isn't done well.
[19:55:55] <krmaher> thanks halfak, I was just about to point to the Annual Plan's Technology/Program 2 on expanding and partnering for research: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2016-2017/draft#Program_2:_Expand_research_capabilities
[19:56:13] <ajr> It's mainly done through meta as issues are identified, but rarely leads to real solutions.
[19:56:14] <krmaher> for ajr's question, but looks like you are on top of it.
[19:56:29] <WereSplchqrs> Thanks ajr, that's what I thought.
[19:56:31] <halfak_> I like to start with Andrea Forte's work when talking about governance structures in Wikipedia. See http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.466.9389&rep=rep1&type=pdf for a good starting point.
[19:56:38] <jorm> i'm gonna disagree with you there on what i think is the thrust of your argument and counter with the fact that this wiki community has managed to survive longer than most online communities do, so it has a different maturation level.
[19:57:00] <jorm> but it's still organized like most others, albeit with different degrees of red-tape depending on the wiki or the level of interaction.
[19:57:05] <ajr> (and thanks krmaher and halfak_ for the links)
[19:57:19] <pearley> ajr: sort of off topic to your question, but we've done some research on online community conduct policies here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Online_Community_Conduct_Policies
[19:57:34] <halfak_> Ooh. this one is good to re. governance http://www.ee.oulu.fi/~vassilis/courses/socialweb10F/reading_material/5/butler08.pdf
[19:57:36] <ajr> Thanks pearley, I'll give it a read :-)
[19:57:58] <halfak_> And http://www.aaai.org/Papers/ICWSM/2008/ICWSM08-011.pdf for the quantitative types.
[19:58:19] <ajr> WereSplchqrs, are you going to Wikimania this year? Dealing with disfunctional communities (on smaller wikiprojects) is a subject I want to address there if possible.
[19:58:41] <krmaher> alright folks, thanks so much for coming today and for the range of questions. I am going to have to run shortly, but I appreciated the opportunity to chat - and learn from others here. Looking forward to doing it again soon!
[19:58:44] <ajr> ...and that reminds me that I haven't actually updated my proposal for a discussion. Ugh.
[19:58:54] <ajr> Thanks krmaher!
[19:59:00] <WereSplchqrs> Hi ajr, sorry going to have to skip this year.
[19:59:10] <ajr> Aww, sorry to hear it.
[19:59:26] <pearley> Folks, we're going to wrap up here. But thanks for some great questions and good discussion!
[19:59:30] <Maggie_Dennis> ajr, I'm keenly interested in outcomes of that conversation. I won't be able to go to Wikimania this year, but I'll ask somebody to let me know.
[19:59:47] <pearley> ajr: I'll be there ...
[20:00:51] <pearley> As usual, Logs will be posted to Meta ...
[20:01:00] <ajr> Maggie_Dennis, I'll be sure that you get the results then. It's a topic that's been discussed for years but no movement has ever happened on.
[20:01:21] <ajr> I wouldn't mind getting somewhere with it this time around, and maybe some face-to-face interactions could help with that.
[20:02:37] <Maggie_Dennis> Thank you, ajr! I look forward to reading it. :) And thanks everyone, I'm off to another meeting!