| |
|
  |
 The Research Committee |
|
|
| Cock-up-over-conspiracy |
|
Now censored by flckr.com and who else ... ???
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 3rd August 2010, 4:25am)  Jeez, another committee I'll have to sign up for. I wonder, maybe a famous London statistician will also get involved. It unpaid Public Relationship assistant work. Gosh, how important I would feel doing it. Unfortunately, my CV does not have the space to fit in more slave labor. What is "support the management ... of relationships with researchers" anyway? QUOTE Erik Moeller erik at wikimedia.org
Tue Aug 3 01:39:44 UTC 2010
Hello all,
The Wikimedia Foundation is looking for volunteers who would like to
support the management of relationships between Wikimedia communities
and the broader communities of researchers who study Wikimedia
projects. We hope to create a committee with volunteers from both
groups with a rich combination of skills and backgrounds.
Here are some areas of work that this new Wikimedia Research
Committee, with help from the Wikimedia Foundation staff, is intended
to explore: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 3rd August 2010, 12:25am) Jeez, another committee I'll have to sign up for. I wonder, maybe a famous London statistician will also get involved. Yet Another Logo And Motto Exhibition (WP:YALAME) Howsabout — - Wikipediot Resuck Committee : The Best Phony Research (PR) Your Money Can Buy
Watcha wanna bet the Credulous Point Of View (CPOV) folks already know about this? Something for you “Follar the Dollar†gumpshoes to look into … Time will tell whether they Leipzigged when they shoulda Leapzagged … Jon (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
| GlassBeadGame |
|
Dharma Bum
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
|
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Tue 3rd August 2010, 6:50am) QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 3rd August 2010, 12:25am) Jeez, another committee I'll have to sign up for. I wonder, maybe a famous London statistician will also get involved. Yet Another Logo And Motto Exhibition (WP:YALAME) Howsabout — - Wikipediot Resuck Committee : The Best Phony Research (PR) Your Money Can Buy
Watcha wanna bet the Credulous Point Of View (CPOV) folks already know about this? Something for you “Follar the Dollar†gumpshoes to look into … Time will tell whether they Leipzigged when they shoulda Leapzagged … Jon (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) Imagine some other subject of research wanting to determine what information to provide, what avenues of inquiry to pursue and what standards of review to be used. I mean other than maybe Mexican Drug Cartels. |
|
|
|
|
|
| thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 3rd August 2010, 2:13pm) It may be appropriate here to copy a would-be post of mine to the Foundation-l mailing list, which is currently on hold for "moderation". QUOTE Erik,
Will critics of less-than-best-practices within the Wikimedia Foundation be considered for invitation to the Wikimedia Research Committee, or is there some sort of loyalty "litmus test" going to be applied?
I've sent my self-nomination by private e-mail anyway, but I thought a public clarification of this question would be a helpful learning.
Thanks,
Greg
--
Gregory Kohs Ha ha! They posted it. And it drew two responses from "the Gerards". Here's my response, which won't likely get published: QUOTE Gerard M. says: Dear Greg, This is not about criticism but about research. With respect I have not seen your research papers, I am not aware of your credentials that would make you a choice to be considered for being part of a research committee. Given that the work of the committee includes work on policies that have to do with access to confidential data, it seems to me only natural that your status as being banned from several Wikis is an other reason why you are easily disqualified from participating in a research committee. At that you have had your "test" several times and as a result you are a known entity. Thanks, GerardM ++++++++++++++++++++ Allow me to make you aware of my credentials, Gerard, since you asked "with respect". I'm the Director of Market Research for a company valued at $52 billion. I've been making a living with market research for 18 years now. One of my co-authored research papers was published in a scientific journal supplement: http://www.ajronline.org/cgi/data/183/3/DC1/1I've written a white paper about research for public relations: http://www.icrsurvey.com/docs/MR%20for%20PR.docFor the more casual reader, I've maintained an occasional blog on research since 2005: http://insidemr.blogspot.com/And, I've conducted numerous informal but systematic research studies about Wikimedia properties: http://www.wikipediareview.com/Wikipedia_Vandalism_Studyhttp://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/watcher/ (You'll have to ask around about that one.) http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Survey_about_Wikipedia (Currently, a bit slow-going on the analysis, due to editing parameters imposed on the Wikiversity community by Jimmy Wales) I am curious about this "access to confidential data" of which you speak. This presupposes that other members of the vast Wikimedia community do currently have access to this confidential data. Have they been vetted in some way that you can be assured that they won't do something with that data more monstrous than what I would ever do with such data? I'm trusted with confidential customer account data by a $52 billion company. Respectfully, how about you? ****************** Meanwhile, D. Gerard says: Trolling blogs probably isn't the best resume item, no. HTH! ****************** Playing dress-up probably is an "interesting" resume item, no? http://tinyurl.com/david-gerard-wikipediaHope that helps! Greg -- Gregory Kohs Cell: 302.463.1354 |
|
|
|
|
|
| EricBarbour |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 6th August 2010, 10:39am) ****************** Meanwhile, D. Gerard says: Trolling blogs probably isn't the best resume item, no. HTH! ****************** Playing dress-up probably is an "interesting" resume item, no? http://tinyurl.com/david-gerard-wikipediaHope that helps! Greg Give it up, Greg. David "The" Gerard will never let you in to do anything. If you want someone to compare him to, how about Dr. Kevin Pezzi? Raging egomaniac, sockpuppeteer and silly-website generator. David Gerard is the pseudo-libertarian alterna-culture wiki-universe Bizarro Kevin Pezzi. But both assholes. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Seurat |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 67
Joined:
From: WP:POINT
Member No.: 24,177
|
(IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif) I thought that the folks around here would enjoy seeing a group of identifiable people, including (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif) experts, participating in "steering" roles on Wikipedia. I wonder what Sanger thinks about this. |
|
|
|
|
|
| EricBarbour |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
QUOTE(Seurat @ Fri 6th August 2010, 2:57pm) I thought that the folks around here would enjoy seeing a group of identifiable people, including (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif) experts, participating in "steering" roles on Wikipedia. Well, an expert just offered his services, and was rejected out of hand. Because he's a well-known critic of Wikipedia and Jimbo, and was banned from WMF sites for that reason. The only reason. Seems to me that if they were serious, they'd accept a wide range of "experts". But they're not serious. They only want "experts" who are willing to suck the teeny-tiny knobs of Jimbo and Friends, and salute the Wiki-Flag each day. QUOTE I wonder what Sanger thinks about this. Feel free to send him a message. You might not like the response. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Seurat |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 67
Joined:
From: WP:POINT
Member No.: 24,177
|
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Fri 6th August 2010, 10:16pm)
Seems to me that if they were serious, they'd accept a wide range of "experts".
But they're not serious. They only want "experts" who are willing to suck the
teeny-tiny knobs of Jimbo and Friends, and salute the Wiki-Flag each day.
(IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) I think it's entirely reasonable of them to limit such a committee to people who want Wikipedia to succeed. If you want to make lulzy analogies about "saluting the Wiki-Flag each day", that's your prerogative, but it doesn't negate the fact that the folks making the decisions do not trust Gregory Kohs to act in their best interest. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Cedric |
|
General Gato
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,648
Joined:
From: God's Ain Country
Member No.: 1,116
|
Is it just me, or is this just a ploy by the WMF to steer research studies on their websites to conclusions more friendly to the WMF? Look at the "areas of work" that Erik outlines: QUOTE * developing policy around researcher permissions for non-public data
* supporting the development of subject recruitment processes
* reviewing research projects when conflicts-of-interest arise
* articulating and channeling requests for data and technical resources
* helping to formulate the key strategic research objectives of the
Wikimedia movement (see strategy.wikimedia.org)
* helping to formulate small tactical experiments related to
Wikimedia's strategic goals
* developing an open access policy as a requirement for significant
support from the Wikimedia Foundation
* helping create a "starter kit" for researchers to avoid duplication of effort And what's up with the call for volunteers? If it is that important, why aren't WMF staff being assigned to this "Research Committee"? Like so much else with the WMF, this looks rather hinky and makes little sense. Do they actually think a truly independent and ethical researcher would fall for any of this bilge? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Eva Destruction |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,735
Joined:
Member No.: 3,301
|
QUOTE(Seurat @ Sat 7th August 2010, 12:04am) QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Fri 6th August 2010, 10:16pm)
Seems to me that if they were serious, they'd accept a wide range of "experts".
But they're not serious. They only want "experts" who are willing to suck the
teeny-tiny knobs of Jimbo and Friends, and salute the Wiki-Flag each day.
(IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) I think it's entirely reasonable of them to limit such a committee to people who want Wikipedia to succeed. If you want to make lulzy analogies about "saluting the Wiki-Flag each day", that's your prerogative, but it doesn't negate the fact that the folks making the decisions do not trust Gregory Kohs to act in their best interest. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif) Subtle but important error there. Most folk who know Greg do know he'd act in what he believes to be Wikipedia's best interest; he's a pretty enthusiastic banger of the open-editing drum. The issue is that Jimbo and co aren't willing to accept anyone whose vision of where Wikipedia ought to go differs in any way from their own party line. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Moulton |
|
Anthropologist from Mars
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Seurat |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 67
Joined:
From: WP:POINT
Member No.: 24,177
|
QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Fri 6th August 2010, 11:32pm) QUOTE(Seurat @ Sat 7th August 2010, 12:04am) (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) I think it's entirely reasonable of them to limit such a committee to people who want Wikipedia to succeed. If you want to make lulzy analogies about "saluting the Wiki-Flag each day", that's your prerogative, but it doesn't negate the fact that the folks making the decisions do not trust Gregory Kohs to act in their best interest. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif) Subtle but important error there. Most folk who know Greg do know he'd act in what he believes to be Wikipedia's best interest; he's a pretty enthusiastic banger of the open-editing drum. The issue is that Jimbo and co aren't willing to accept anyone whose vision of where Wikipedia ought to go differs in any way from their own party line. Subtle but important error there. "Most folk who know Greg" ≠"the folks making the decisions". And as a result of the way he goes about his criticisms, the folks making the decisions aren't so interested in getting to know Greg. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif) I'm not against Greg being part of this research group, nor against him being excluded. I'm merely pointing out that it's a natural consequence of his vociferous criticism that the generalization will be made that he wishes to "hasten the day". |
|
|
|
|
|
| Subtle Bee |
|
melli fera, fera...
Group: Inactive
Posts: 340
Joined:
Member No.: 17,787
|
QUOTE(Seurat @ Fri 6th August 2010, 5:35pm) QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Fri 6th August 2010, 11:32pm)
Subtle but important error there. Most folk who know Greg do know he'd act in what he believes to be Wikipedia's best interest; he's a pretty enthusiastic banger of the open-editing drum. The issue is that Jimbo and co aren't willing to accept anyone whose vision of where Wikipedia ought to go differs in any way from their own party line.
Subtle but important error there. "Most folk who know Greg" ≠"the folks making the decisions". And as a result of the way he goes about his criticisms, the folks making the decisions aren't so interested in getting to know Greg. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif) Subtle but important error there. "Most folk who know shit" ≠"the folks making the decisions". And as a result of the way they go about avoiding criticism, the folks making the decisions aren't so interested in getting to know shit. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Seurat |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 67
Joined:
From: WP:POINT
Member No.: 24,177
|
QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Sat 7th August 2010, 12:51am) QUOTE(Seurat @ Sat 7th August 2010, 1:35am)
Subtle but important error there. "Most folk who know Greg" ≠"the folks making the decisions".
Bullshit. I can guarantee that everyone at the WMF is well aware of Greg (who remains, AFAIK, the only person ever to have wrung an apology from Jimmy Wales for his treatment at the hands of the Wikipedia goon-squad). Can you similarly guarantee that they know to what extent he would act in their best interests? I'm not arguing that they're not aware of Greg, I'm arguing that they don't know that he might be helpful. They do not find his criticisms helpful, and that weighs against him. They don't comment here talking to him or about him, and they therefore do not get to know him. What leads from that is obvious: if you want Greg to be included in this sort of thing, work on convincing them that he can, in fact, be helpful to their mission, that he does have their interests at heart despite his criticism. QUOTE(Subtle Bee @ Sat 7th August 2010, 12:52am) QUOTE(Seurat @ Fri 6th August 2010, 5:35pm) Subtle but important error there. "Most folk who know Greg" ≠"the folks making the decisions". And as a result of the way he goes about his criticisms, the folks making the decisions aren't so interested in getting to know Greg. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif) Subtle but important error there. "Most folk who know shit" ≠"the folks making the decisions". And as a result of the way they go about avoiding criticism, the folks making the decisions aren't so interested in getting to know shit. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif) There are a number of ways I could answer this. Choose one: - "Wait, did you just compare Greg to shit? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)"
- "I can totally understand! I don't want to grok fecal matter myself. I prefer to flush it. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)"
- Hey, let's play some Mad Libs! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Subtle Bee |
|
melli fera, fera...
Group: Inactive
Posts: 340
Joined:
Member No.: 17,787
|
QUOTE(Seurat @ Fri 6th August 2010, 6:56pm) QUOTE(Subtle Bee @ Sat 7th August 2010, 12:52am) QUOTE(Seurat @ Fri 6th August 2010, 5:35pm) Subtle but important error there. "Most folk who know Greg" ≠"the folks making the decisions". And as a result of the way he goes about his criticisms, the folks making the decisions aren't so interested in getting to know Greg. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif) Subtle but important error there. "Most folk who know shit" ≠"the folks making the decisions". And as a result of the way they go about avoiding criticism, the folks making the decisions aren't so interested in getting to know shit. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif) There are a number of ways I could answer this. Choose one: - "Wait, did you just compare Greg to shit? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)"
- "I can totally understand! I don't want to grok fecal matter myself. I prefer to flush it. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)"
- Hey, let's play some Mad Libs! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)
1. Yeah. But he's a pretty good shit. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) 2. Kinda ironic, given your username... 3. Way ahead of you. But no matter which gambit you choose, you'll still miss the point, which in a way is the point. Or at least illustrates it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |
