Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikidemia

message: Re: the comments above: So, maybe i misuderstand what this is about, but i dont think that it would be publishing anything in the main article space, and so is completely exempt from the "no original research" rule. Best of luck, i think its a great idea. The bellman 09:52, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)
I've just stumbled across this project and realise that it's exactly what I'm doing for my Master's degree. You can see more info on my user page or see what another wikipedian has posted onto meta with my pilot questionnaire and some suggestions for research here.
However, I am also wary of this no original research caveat, and in no way want to violate this, though I think that this should be a part of wikipedia (ie. the community) and accessible to it throughout. One suggestion I got was to have this as a Wikisource project - any opinions on this? I should make it known that I am still relatively new to Wikipedia (though not as new as my user details suggest) and am not yet fully aware of the intricacies of the Wikimedia structure. Cormaggio 15 Dec 2004
Agree that the English language encyclopedia restriction on publication of original research as articles is inapplicable. That's about getting citable sources and not personal essays or junk science and unsupported UFO stories, not about research about Wikipedia itself. Jamesday 14:05, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research

message: I'd love to see a study of anonymous contributions to Wikipedia. What percentage are vandalism, what percentage are corrections, what percentage in correct English. Does this vary on new vs. existing articles? How does the percentage of new anonymous article VfD'd or speedy-deleted compare to logged-in users, etc. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:18, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
: Even though the post is extremely old, i still think that answering it might bring even more ideas for table. I am currently conducting a research that will try to see if critical/unique ideas are brought to the table depending on the anonymous state of the user(real name, pseudonym, completely anonymous). Generally the research tests whether an individual will conform with crowd that has a different opinion to his, or he will propose the alternative solution that he has in mind. The differences between the anonymity states are compared. Currently the project is pending approval for subject recruitment by the Rcom so if you have any ideas or comments that could help the research move forward feel free to visit the meta:Research:Anonymity_and_conformity_over_the_net page. --Tsikerdekis (talk) 10:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something I'd love to see studied 

message: Academia strives to maintain an accredited status, so academia requires resources of knowledge that can fit that goal.  We can provide articles that acheieve the standards required under an accreditation process.
Most of this wikidemia project includes statistics, so far.  To secure accreditation, we could study methodology that improves quality of articles, also.  Perhaps, a certification that an article meets a certain standard can be given.
* What elements do accreditation boards look at when they consider the resources of knowlegde that a particular college uses?
* What are the different kinds of certifications an article can acheieve to meet a required standard on a resource?
* Does the certification process help or hinder an open contribution environment like wikipedia?
* What is needed, like a statistic enumeration of certified articles over uncertifiable, to justify wikipedia, or a subset or it, as a viable resource in accreditation standards?
It seems very unlikely that any wiki can qualify under some types of accreditation. How do you accredit an article about god which can be changed to contain only the text "42" at any time? The bad side of academic standards was seen in the project which preceded Wikipedia and failed after a very large investment, with less than one hundred articles. Jamesday 14:05, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Secure Accreditation 

message: I'm really glad I discovered this page, as I'm writing my MA dissertation on the Wikipedia, and am very concerned that my research should reflect the spirit of the wiki itself.  For this reason, I've provided a short summary of my research on my user page, and hope to get into contact with like-minded people (both academics and otherwise) to discuss the ideas that I have about the Wikipedia.
I won't write much about my ideas here (as they are outlined on my user page illWill) but will say that I am addressing the Wikipedia as a democratic structure. I don't mean in the sense of a parliamentary democracy, but rather in terms of a collaborative project which encourages people to work together for a common good.
I aim to show that teh strength of the Wikipedia lies in an attribute most commonly cited as a weakness: its unreliability. I want to show that the constantly-changing nature of the Wikipedia should demonstrate that knowledge is seldom fixed, and also to demonstrate how the discussion pages, history and user talk pages demonsrate the path of any item of knowledge into the Wikipedia, and the state of the debates surrounding any issue.  I'm sorry if this is a bit vague and maybe a little pretencious at the moment, I'm just starting on my research, and decided that it would be in the spirit of the wiki to start posting it as soon as I could, even if my ideas were a bit half-baked. 
Please get in touch at my talk page illWill 22:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writing an MA dissertation (Media & Cultural Studies) on Wikipedia 

message: from User_talk:Radiant!#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Templates, User_talk:Tobacman#WikiProject_Automatic_Archival_Notification and other places.
:Can we get some clarity here? I'm overwhelmed. Quinobi 23:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: managing WikiProjects quazi-centrist style

message: I personally think it's ridiculous to have such a large channel. It can be fun, comical and interesting as a social gathering place, but from what I can tell, there is not much productive administration going on there - usually just mass confusion. Quinobi 04:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a fair comment, but what is its exact relevance to the Wikidemia project? Are you suggesting another channel? For what? I think you'll find, if you're looking for "productive administration" on IRC, you won't find much support there; instead comments like: "IRC_is_not_Wikipedia". I think people find it nice to be able to just shoot the breeze without the constraints of Wikipedia's policies - excepting reasonable civility, of course. Cormaggio 10:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Hmm - maybe I didn't understand what you were driving at - and I hadn't seen the mention of IRC on the main project page - but I'd still welcome any thoughts or clarifications you had on this point. Cormaggio 14:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: WikipediaIRC

message: I've known about this page for a long time but decided not to sign up until I had something to contribute. I have recently endeavered to undertake a massive project. Other Wikipedians and I are going through every third month of the RfA candidacies and taking note of certain phrases and reasonings behind successful and unsuccessful adminships. We are doing this in order to gain an understanding of WP's adminship ideaology as it stands now and how it has changed over time. This information may have myriad uses as well such as influencing policy. If you would like to contribute in anyway whatsoever and that includes gathering information or deciding what kind of information should be gathered then you may do so here: RfA Idealogy Analysis. Soon I would like to move this into the wikipedia namespace and out of my userspace. Thank you and have a good day (or night). Jaberwocky6669 | ☎ 03:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Does "idealogy" mean something distinct from "ideology"? It's not in my dictionary, so I'm guessing that it is a misspelling; I don't see how that word "ideology" is appropriate to this context. Am I missing something here? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New member -- possible project

message: This projects has a lots of potential, but it also needs major help. For over a month now I have been gathering information on 'Wikipedia as a research tool' and 'Wikipedia as a teaching tool', and I just stumbled now on this project by accident (redirect from Wikipedia:Research). It is not linked from almost any important pages, most places that link here are user pages, talk pages or other projects. Especially such important page as Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia did not even mention this project (and vice versa)! The bottom line is that majority of academics/researchers/scientists have no idea how to correctly use Wiki, and even researchers familiar with it (and registered as Wikipedians) are very unlikely to find it. My solution: I would like to make a more user friendly portal, linking pages from :Category:Wikipedia resources for researchers and then link it from various important pages (preferably via nice template on all related category pages). I even think that this would be worthy of including in MediaWiki software as a possible link from a toolbox. We have a decent help system, but our tools for serious, academic researchers are hard to find - and I do think that one of our goals should be to promote Wiki to the academic community. What do you think? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impact 

message: Greets all.  I've been looping through all research related pages for quite some time this afternoon and feel the need to distinguish this group from activities on meta.  It seems that research ideas and collaboration is best placed on meta:Research.  However, this group can certainly accomplish much as a local instance of that movement?  There is an irc meeting this Sunday for meta:Wikimedia Research Network, make it if you can.  ∴ here…♠ 23:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[meta:Research]] and [[meta:Wikimedia Research Network]] 

message: I stumbled upon this recently, it seems to be dead (no activity for almost a year), but the survey is mostly completed. I think this survey is an excellent idea, and it needs only a little extra effort to be finished. I hope some of you will be interested in carrying this out, I most certainly volunteer to help with this.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[meta:General User Survey]] 

message: For those interested in some statistical analysis of users behaviour, I have suggested a possible new bot at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Bot_for_researchers_needed, feel free to add your comments.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot for researchers 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.   B2T2 14:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention.  Badbilltucker 19:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: I have compiled a list of studies published in Wikipedia space, as well as useful tools published here: see Wikipedia:Researching Wikipedia.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia in amateur studies

message: A lot of criticisms towards Wikipedia revolve around the criticism that many of the contributions are from non-experts. Would it be possible, (or even desirable), to design a policy that gives special priviliges of some kind to those with degrees such as:
PhD, EdD, DEng, EngD, DBA, DD, JCD, SSD, JUD, DSc, DLitt, DA, DMH, MD, DMA, DMus, DCL, ThD, DrPH, DPT, DPhil, PsyD, DSW, LLD, LHD,  JSD, SJD, JuDr, STD, DMin? When I say "priviliges", I mean some kind of policy that may help quell some of the criticisms of those with this level of education, and perhaps even attract more people with these sorts of degrees? EPM 19:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the admin system needs to be expanded a little to create more than a two step hierarchy. This could be something like 'New editor', 'Experienced editor', 'Expert in X field' etc. Having some official title for non-admins leading certain projects, or experts in certain fields, would give them some authority in their area. As an example, there may be an expert in palaeontology who is given authority over related categories etc, allowing them to, say, ban a crank editor pushing pseudo-scientific claims and generally being a pest. Experts should probably be given higher authority than admins, but only within their field. Richard001 00:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Special priviliges to those w/ doctorate degrees?

message: What open access research can do for Wikipedia
by John Willinsky
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue12_3/willinsky/
too long for a summary right now--I've only just seen it. Basically a discussion of how we could do better sourcing with available Open access sources;  some of his specific examples seem a little besides the point, but i have the highest respect for his work in general. (First Monday is an online librarianship journal) DGG 08:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: new article about WP

message: I propose the Wikipedia:Statistics Department and this project merge into one - neither is particularly active and they basically cover similar areas. It would be nice to see some active research, and merging them into one project would at least create a comprehensive project as a starting point. Richard001 02:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statistics department and Wikidemia

message: A new project coordinates with professional educators who assign students to edit Wikipedia articles.  It links here as a related project. DurovaCharge! 19:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination]] 

message: ...Ben Franklin's various scientific associations, especially the intentioned studies list! 68.39.174.238 15:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This reminds me of... 

message: Hey guys, I'm a NLP researcher and I plan to use wikipedia as corpus to do statistical machine learning.  As a biproduct of this I intend to produce a plain-text snapshot of wikipedia, suitable for use by other NLPists.  Wikipedia is a great body of contemporary English text on a wide variety of subjects and I think it should be used for corpus work more often that it has been.  Does anyone know of similar work?  Should I add myself to this project? Cmouse 17:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a long term goal we are preparing corpus statistics based on Wikipedia snapshots at the University of Leipzig accessible via the web in a way similiar to http://corpora.uni-leipzig.de/. Some time ago I implemented a proof of concept with the German February 2005 snapshot  at http://wortschatz.uni-leipzig.de/WP/ . (User:Meep in de.wikipedia) 139.18.2.70 (talk) 11:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Cmouse, please see this. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 11:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research using wikipedia as a corpus 

message: I've done a quick survey of reference use, available at the subpage Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikidemia/Use of referencing and assessment. The main finding was that 70% of articles cite no references. It isn't intended to be a very serious study in itself, but provides some basic information on reference use and assessment, and provides suggestions for future studies. Richard001 04:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A new study

message: I see I posted this at the wrong wikiproject Deletion of teacher assigned projects  Kopachuk Middle School...there has been a reply to whit that the student in order to meet his teacher's pre-requisite had to use user space rather than article space.  Why invite teachers and students to learn and write articles on wikipedia if they are deleted?  It seems moot.  SriMesh | talk 16:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is another school project where the teacher has asked the kids to write about local Edmonton bands which got speedy deleted, and the kids are giving up and asking why bother with the teacher's assignment if they won't stay on wikipedia. band article deletion The articles created at this Unannounced class project for the most part survived AFD, and they received help from various wikipedians about manual of style to help them through the AFD nominations. SriMesh | talk 23:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion and school projects

message: Can this Wikipedia talk:School and university projects page have membership and admins -perhaps through  wikiproject Education  or its child projects, Wikipedia:WikiProject Education in Australia, Wikipedia:WikiProject Education in Canada, Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities, Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools, Wikipedia:WikiProject School Years, Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative education, Wikipedia:WikiProject Homeschooling... to help find articles which come onto wikipedia as is above and get deleted before it is discovered they are part of a class project, so that the teacher/students can be contacted about templates etc.  This message also posted at the other wikiprojects as well.  Kind Regards  SriMesh | talk 23:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: found it Classroom coordination with coordinators, and instructions for students with contacts.  Tis already made.  SriMesh | talk 23:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikiproject membership - Admins - coordinators

message: The Signpost is seeking more reviewers for a range of upcoming and recent books related to Wikipedia.  Sign up at the review desk.--ragesoss (talk) 05:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Reviewing books for the Wikipedia Signpost

message: Hey, I am re-posting here because I thought people might be interested in a proposal I recently submitted to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals).  The gestalt of the proposal is that Wikipedia needs a review system to both protect itself from questionable research activities and to allow good research to take place within the system.  Currently research involving anything other than the database snapshots is difficult because there is no formal policy related to research within Wikipedia. --EpochFail (talk|contribs) 18:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That does sound interesting.  Could you phrase it in terms of empowering researchers to do more effective work, rather than a 'review system' which sounds like a filtering and approval process? [if a filter/approval process: for what?  do we publish a journal of the best papers?  give only approved works access to special tools?] +sj+ 15:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  WIkipedia research review 

message: See Fundraising_2010/Committee -- a change from earlier instances of fundraising committees, and open to general participation!  –SJ+ 20:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fundraising discussion and research 

message: The project is categorized inactive. Has it been [unofficially] merged with one of the other Research pages? --Rhododendrites (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Status 

message: Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on the WikiProject X proposal 

message: Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject X is live!