So began the second day of the Wikipedia Academy, Berlin for 2012…
I have to admit I was excited to begin the day as it was my first chance to run my research past an international audience (for my full paper, please visit the Wikipedia Academy site). I also managed to grab a snap of my minimal, Helvetica slides pre-session:
The presentation went well with three questions asked at completion: how do you motivate participation; how do you manage conflict; and are the “widely known” Wikipedia principles useful for studying Wikipedia? The first two questions I was very prepared for, however I did walk away thinking about the last question – it also supports my rising understanding of the tension between the researcher and the researched within the Wikipedia environment. My response was it was useful to use the principles as a lens to view participation, however I’m not so sure how to gauge in the Wikipedia community.
The following are the notes from the session:
Dalit Ken-Dror firstname.lastname@example.org – Gold and Green Models – An open access Solution?
- Open access publishing – green model and gold model
- Gold model barriers: high price to researcher, long time to publish, reputation
- How to remove them: a call for institutional green model
- The tension between the open access model and emerging scholars – the high ranking journal is always appealing
- MIT & UCL (University College London) has a solution – reserves the right to publish their researcher’s work, it is published under Open Access – copyright amendment [http://mitpress-ebooks.mit.edu/faqs]
- peer review in repositories by academic institutions – similar to wikipedia model
- Implementing incentive: The researcher MUST review four articles a year to be published in the OA repository
- This avoids the publisher – instant publishing, reduces expenses
- OA green and gold models are new models that disassemble some barriers while constructing new ones
- Question – the reputation of scholars is important through publication within high ranking journals (proved for an interesting debate)
- Mixing social science methods with computational methods
- Wikia – smaller for profit version of wikipedia
- John Peel, first DJ of Radio 1 1967 – memory community upon Wikipedia
- Intersection between web and memory studies
- New media approach – we leave a digital trace that can be then analysed by media researchers
- Geez, us researchers are scrutinising Wikipedia from all angles. Really rich cultural findings #wpac2012
- Wikipedia and Wikia have the same social/technological specificity – political protocols are also similar
- To understand what the platforms do is the key in understanding what happens in the offline from online community, we need to move away from McLuhan’s approach to newer Manovich approaches – how the technology (platforms) enables (or doesn’t) its users.
Science Communication Panel
- What is the motivation between scientists and non-scientists to co-exists within open access platforms?
- A list of open access platforms – OA thinking, platforms, funding, projects – it seems like a large shopping list
- There is a relationship between popular OA platforms – a critical mass amongst publishing scientists, is the solution policy regulation?
- Interesting thought provocation [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action]
- Example of the natural sciences being invading by social scientists and the social uprising that followed
- Subjectivity in data (when published) can have negative impact to the researcher (because of your own interpretation of the data) – we don’t collect our failures, we collect our successes. A semantic shift in understanding what open access can achieve
- Author ID – attribution to authors, an automated process?
Paper Session 2
Alexander Mehler, Christian Stegbauer and Rüdiger Gleim: Latent Barriers in Wiki-based Collaborative Writing
- How can we measure collaborativeness?
- personal views can become stereotypes
- Centre-periphery structure
- Plagarising wiki used to check the German defence minister who was dismissed because his PhD was plagiarised
- Collaborativeness Analysis though productivity, sensitivity to social roles, time sensitivity, sensitivity to cohesion, sensitivity to coherence – useful for analysing social networks that are collaborating
- Centre-periphery is a useful way to understand the organisational structure of a network
- Interesting point around participation vs collaboration – in terms of taxonomy
All in all, great day of extrapolating the thinking around Wikipedia and how this impacts on other areas of open access/platforms and the production of culture/knowledge.