User talk:HaeB - Knowledge

8503: 9105:

I'm now certain is yet another problem (non-existent or mis-attributed comments), in addition to the several methodical ones that the review is going to cover. I want to take a bit more time to check whether this is a more widespread data problem that may warrant mention in the review, or a fluke that just happened to affect my own talk page. But I don't want to hold up publication (and also need to move on to other things myself for a while), so let's postpone it for another month. I'll replace this placeholder with another already drafted item in a minute and then it should be ready to go.

2426: 49: 5934:. Arabic project on the other hand does not show much self-bias; instead it over-represents events that happen in English-speaking countries (but not the USA). The Chinese and Spanish Knowledge, authors argue, have a stronger self-focus bias than Arabic and English projects, although still, over 90% of events covered by the news sections of these projects are about items not related to these countries. The authors also find, perhaps unsurprisingly, that larger Wikipedias will react to breaking news faster and update their news section more promptly. 5227: 2029:

each of the facts under the opening paragraph. There was even reference to the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike license that Knowledge content is licensed under. But, as the panels evolved, blue links to Knowledge articles started shrinking in size. Over time, the underscore was removed so that the links weren’t clickable, and then the links were lightened to a barely visible grey tone. Now, facts under the opening paragraph tend not to be cited at all, and hyperlinked statements refer back to other Google pages."

4943:(a review of said book). The author concludes that this, somewhat begruding, acceptance of current developments by the Knowledge community has significantly contributed to making its coverage relevant to the general audience, and at the same time, notes that despite reliance on media sources, rather than waiting for scholarly coverage, Knowledge was still able to main high quality in its coverage, which the author attributes to editor's reliance on "legacy media utlets, like the New York Times and the BBC". 3671: 8567: 5562: 7170:, I have no objection to increasing, with the justification being that this isn't a flash in the pan topic, and the likelyhood of continued distruption is extraordinarily high given the subject matter. I would note that there is more than "vandalism", but actually spamming and other disruption that makes this a rather unique case. This was my thinking in giving it a month (and brainfarting when it was asking to override), which is longer than most first time semi- for non-BLP articles. 4633: 2332: 240: 7540: 4755: 9950: 9902: 9842: 9443: 9395: 9347: 9299: 9145: 9030: 8807: 8353: 8217: 8056: 8008: 7960: 7868: 7820: 7772: 7724: 7652: 7459: 7411: 7363: 7315: 7267: 7219: 7055: 6914: 6866: 6818: 6741: 6693: 6645: 6597: 6549: 5957: 5843: 5795: 5680: 5632: 5428: 5380: 5332: 5284: 5170: 4843: 4705: 4657: 4581: 4533: 4485: 4437: 4389: 4341: 4293: 4109: 4061: 4013: 3965: 3917: 3869: 3821: 3619: 3571: 3523: 3475: 3339: 3291: 3243: 3195: 3105: 3057: 2850: 2802: 2754: 2487: 2377: 2280: 2207: 1967: 1829: 1732: 1684: 1595: 1547: 1499: 1388: 1340: 1292: 1244: 1101: 1036: 932: 884: 836: 714: 666: 618: 570: 483: 435: 387: 288: 188: 140: 92: 8449: 3154: 8267: 5084: 1881: 1005: 343: 8405: 2535: 9492: 6963: 3690: 3388: 6037:-- what is happening there with "new-who-claim-not-to-be-new" agenda-driven editors is pretty disgraceful. I have some time finally to address the problems, point-by-point, in discussion. I'll be sure to make the case for following Knowledge policies and guidelines before making any alterations. Would you mind looking back in over the next couple of days on the Talk page, to see how you would assess or characterize the dispute? - 8131: 2678: 5480: 5519: 6400:

predatory journals, process/governance details, COI/bias issues (should WMF be compelled to fund distribution of research that criticizes it or doesn't align with its opinions and priorities) - although much of this may not be worse than for some already existing systems. A Signpost op-ed might be a good way to launch such a discussion. (It doesn't quite fit in RR, but we could surely link to it.)

7571:. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Knowledge’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Knowledge administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project. 8863:("Invalid Claims About the Validity of Implicit Association Tests by Prisoners of the Implicit Social-Cognition Paradigm", PMCID PMC8167921) This may pertain to the study under review, but I don't feel like I can make that statement myself. In the paper they don't seem to acknowledge IAT may be imperfect, and yet, of the study results dependent on IAT, they acknowledge that 8932:

task are good subjects? I know they did some demographic basis-setting, but do you think that was legit? Seems to me that anonymous quiz-taking (for pay) on the Internet is ... hmm... less than ideal in terms of filtering out trolls and getting a representation of the psychology of "average" users. Then again, maybe bored and underemployed people

9808:

article ideas, but I really do not want to stress anyone out with a burden of saying "no". You wrote a lot of text which was very courteous to me, and while I appreciate your kindness, it was my error to make the submission in such a way that pressured you to think so much instead of rejecting it with less thought.

6425:). Frankly, I consider my Knowledge userpage a personal website, but again, legally, it's weird, uploading the paper to wikibooks or such would be more copyright craziness. What are best practices here? Right now my simplest idea is to upload the file to a file locker and link it from my old forgotten blog :P 9770:

Editors are expected to refrain from making unnecessary references to the actual or perceived racial, religious, or ethnic background of fellow editors. Such references should be made only if they clearly serve a legitimate purpose. In the context of a noticeboard discussion or dispute resolution, it

9104:

My apologies. I had already taken the latter advice ;) The review was mostly written already, but while looking further through the paper's replication data (to extract some illustrative non-cherry-picked examples to use in the review, from my own user talk page - i.e. this one...) I encountered what

8931:

Thanks for the copyedit, I like the way it's looking now. One other thing that I hesitated to add. If the linchpin of their result is not the IAT, but now is rather the self-reported "gender slider" test for perceived fitness for occupations. How did they determine that the people willing to do this

7506:

Hi HaeB, My name is Dr. Tim Koskie and I am a researcher at the Centre for Media Transition (CMT) at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS). We are conducting a study on the implications of content-generating AI systems such as ChatGPT for knowledge integrity on Knowledge, and are approaching you

7137:

I hate to semi-protect talk pages for very long, as that leaves non-confirmed good faith editors no way to easily make edit requests. But I agree this talk page situation looks untenable; when it is unprotected, there's a firehose of confused and/or stupid edits that make legit use of the talk page

3725:

I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join the new page reviewing team, and after reviewing your editing history, I think you would be a good candidate. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Knowledge policies and guidelines; the new

2590:

on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit

799:

Hi, the revert was intentional - if you reuse a citation that is already in the text, you should communicate that to fellow editors who may be reviewing your change (personally I use something like "per already cited ref" in the edit summary in such cases). I'll also note that you did not update the

8995:

PS: Wait, reading again (and further into the paper), I realize you were referring to a separate task where they indeed used MTurk, separate from the one where they used Prolific. So adjust the above accordingly. Again, I would look into what kind of due diligence they mention having done in either

6059:

That sounds like a good plan of action. As always on Knowledge, you don't need me or any other third party to come to an agreement with the editor about whose edits you are concerned; but I have this article on my watchlist now and if time permits I may try to take another look and perhaps weigh in

4938:

One of the most interesting, if somewhat tangential to the main topic observations of the author is that Knowledge "is used in ways similar to a news media", which "generates a tension between Knowledge's original encyclopaedic ambitions and these pressing journalisstic tendencies" (an interesting

2040:

are some examples from 2013, showing Knowledge in pale grey rather than as a blue hyperlink.) This is no longer the case. The blue Knowledge hyperlink has become standard again in Google, and it's also standard on DuckDuckGo, the search engine used for the particular study we were discussing. Best,

2028:

Heather says, "Soon after Google’s announcement, former head of research at the Wikimedia Foundation, Dario Taraborelli, started taking notice of how Google represented information from Knowledge in its knowledge panels. One of the first iterations featured a prominent backlink to Knowledge next to

1085:

This page is so severely out of date that it got tagged for that reason... in 2013. I'd like to improve it, but I don't really know where to look for sources besides Google Scholar. Given your experience monitoring research on WMF wikis, I was wondering whether you were interested in helping, or if

9115:

counted as toxic for the purposes of the paper (while that one did indeed receive an extraordinarily high overall "toxicity" score of 0.239654, caused by the "threat" and "insult" subdimensions, that was still below the 0.8 threshold used in the authors' analysis). I'm glad to have checked that -

8977:

Having read a bit more of the paper now, I think the review could still use a bit more detail on what the Knowledge-related findings looked like concretely (given that they were not the paper's main focus), I might take a stab at that shortly - will ping you again if I make any substantial changes

8956:

is definitely a concern in general when using such platforms. But their use is also pretty much standard in this line of research, and the authors seem to have done at least some due diligence (also search for "attention checks" in the paper). So it isn't necessarily a red flag. If you want to dig

7915:

Hello! the reason I removed that part is because it is not mentioned in any authentic reports. The source that was used was written by a famously biased person who does not provide a source to what she is saying in some parts of her book, if you think this should be kept then it should at least be

7510:

If you are interested, we would like to invite you to participate in our study. It would involve joining either a focus group discussion or an interview (around 1 hour), in person at Wikimania in Singapore if you are going to be there, or online at a future date. At these sessions we would ask you

1177:

Keep in mind that no one is obliged to "get back" in such content discussions, and neither are you obliged to wait for everyone's sign-off. But do expect that if policy violations that had been pointed out earlier remain unresolved, any editor may still take issue with them going forward. Regards,

764:

You deleted my edit on Conscientiousness and subjective well-being because I did not add a source. The thing is, a source was already there. You can find the information in the same study that was used in a source for the first sentence. On page 145 you can find a table of the big five personality

9807:

I recognize that I am forward with putting out proposals, but I hope that I have not been argumentative. One change that I think I can make is to communicate how open I am to veto or rejection when I know that a submission is edgy. I would like to keep the freedom to encourage hot submissions for

4922:

The chapter, unfortunately not yet in open access, provides a good overview of Knowledge's history and practices, concluding that Knowledge's coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic is "precise and robust", and how this generated positive coverage of Knowledge in mainstrem media. The author provides an

7191:

that talk pages should be only be protected in rare and unusual situations. But this is clearly one of them. I would add that these edits are actually in all likelihood not intentionally disruptive, as they appear to come from people who mistake that talk page for an interface where one can post

9271:

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please

6259:? It can take a few months, and that's OK (the monthly editions are not for super timely breaking research news, we have Twitter and Mastodon for that. Sooner is better of course, and with the help of some new volunteers we are currently speeding up things a bit and also reducing the backlog). 6399:

Not sure though how current that information is. As for "should": From the perspective of the newsletter anything that makes relevant research more accessible would of course be welcome; although I could also imagine some tricky implementation questions, e.g. about very highly priced fees or

3030:, which is due for publication in a little over 22 hours already (27 March 20:00 UTC) - if that timing doesn't work out for you, we could also run it in a future edition. The only thing I can think of adding might be mentions of related research about open access citations on Knowledge (e.g. 8854:

Hi, I held back on adding something to my Recent research writeup; feel like I'm already over my head especially considering the stature of the journal it's appearing in. However, I thought I'd run this by you. A statistician at U Toronto named Ulrich Schimmack has criticized experiments on

9248: 7699:

Several years ago, there was a dispute regarding the Certifications table on album pages and whether or not we include pure album sales in its own column with sources (as certification numbers, and pure sales numbers aren’t always the same). This discussion has recently been re-opened

2549:; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 8710:

then notice the immediate topic sliding of the other users, failure to understand text when that's what they're trying to do for wikipedia and unwillingness to explain their position just like in another article that took 2 months and a forced edit before it even got attention..

3785:

Hello! I'd appreciate if you could send me the credentials for our Twitter and Facebook accounts :) I'd love to help with writing copy for each issue, as well as scheduled Tweets/Facebook posts, in order to hopefully increase our reach. Thank you! My email is open.

5046:

gets delayed so Recent Research can be finished properly, but don't know how much JPxG checks messages in all the chaos of publishing, so might be a good idea to at least add a link to where the final paper will be, since I think it's published somewhere else too?

8969:

mentions some other concerns about that platform specifically but needs to be updated with newer findings. More recently, giving the increasing capabilities of AI, there has been a bit of panic that many such survey reponses might ... not be human-generated, but

3743:

before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, most pages are easy to review, and habits are quick to develop). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at

1474:

Thanks again for covering these two important items for this issue. Regarding the Google image dataset, I just added mention of the accompanying Kaggle competition and the WMF research team's aims and involvement, as both should be of interest for our readers in

5753:

I'm not quite sure which edit(s) you are referring to - I have reverted at least four BLP violations in the last hour or so. In any case I didn't request a revdel for any of them so far, so feel free to go ahead if you see a case where that is advised. Regards,

9587:

thanks for the heads-up! Yes, that should be in scope for RR. (It's not peer-reviewed and the publisher is a conservative think tank, but the author has done related research for a while, which seems to have been well-regarded and was featured e.g. in the

9120:

instead. Will take some more time to figure out what's going on with these warnings too. (Had you removed wiki and HTML formatting - as described on p.6 of the paper - before passing it to the API? Sometimes language models get tripped up by this kind of

9251: 28:

I usually reply here. I am often working on several things at the same time, so if I haven't answered yet even though I am online and editing elsewhere, please have some patience - if it is really urgent, prod me with a follow-up message.

5575:, the latter fixing copyvio problems, for requesting sources for added facts, for explaining "a well-known cognitive bias known as curse of knowledge", for SignPost journalism including editor-in-chief. for service from 2003, - you are an 2656:

Hello! Can you clarify on the reliability of the source material of "obituary :The Independent" report on NFAK. Is it safe to cite 'obituary' for a reliable source of info for a living person? I see one person removed it from that page..

9402: 9645: 9776: 7144:

Dennis, if you got this ping, any objection to increasing to a year, since three 1-month and 1 3-month protections weren't sufficient? If you look at the page history, HaeB is right, this is basically guaranteed to start right back

3031: 9759: 9997:

Hi HaeB, Are you aware on any research on how the presence or absence of a redirect from species to genus or similar type redirect affects how likely it is that someone will create a new article on the topic? Cheers, · · ·

8783:'s talk page. It applies to you word for word. I could have pinged you there, but I wanted to leave a record of it on your talk page as well, and copying and pasting it here seemed silly - so that's it. Thank you kindly, 9601: 803:

In any case, I appreciate that you have followed up on this now, and thank you for the explanation! Based on this, I was going to reinstate your edit, but on closer inspection there are other issues with it, regarding

1208:

has been indefinitely blocked. Have noticed that both editors have attempted to blank the disputed content in question (censorship?), later justifying the removal with state-owned media sources, is this a sign of the

9604:

of some previous studies alleging a political bias of Knowledge, it may be interesting to examine what the study uses as its purportedly neutral baseline, which is always a challenge in such bias research. Regards,

4828: 3959: 3815: 8884:

It's not just the statistician that you mention, there seems to be an entire literature raising concerns about the IAT's validity and reliability (and also defenses by its proponents). Some of this is described at

6009: 4007: 3613: 3469: 2748: 2481: 2201: 1961: 1678: 1589: 1541: 1334: 1286: 1095: 1030: 2455:

Dear HaeB, thank you for your initial help at Carl von Bimsarck page. Editors on the German and Portugues page insist on mantaining the poorly source article and locked the page for editing.Can you please help?

6396:

The Wikimedia Foundation does not cover APCs for research conducted under the terms of policy, but researchers may apply for an additional grant from the Wikimedia Foundation to cover these fees under certain

3863: 3565: 3333: 3237: 3099: 2796: 1471:. (If my note there is still from last month, then that means I haven't yet gotten to create the updated pad with the newest papers - but in that case feel free to leave that note in last month's pad instead.) 660: 282: 8861:

I find no support for the claim that IATs have practically significant incremental predictive validity. In conclusions, IATs are widely used without psychometric evidence of construct or predictive validity.

2371: 1726: 878: 830: 779: 708: 477: 429: 182: 9944: 9389: 9341: 9293: 9024: 8211: 8050: 8002: 7405: 7357: 7213: 6860: 6687: 6591: 6543: 5951: 5278: 4575: 4651: 4431: 134: 7935:"please explain on the talk page", I was referring to the article's talk page (where other editors working on the article will see it too), rather than this one. I have copied your comment over to it: 9691:(It wasn't really the focus of my remark though. I'm not actually familiar with that case, I was rather focused on the other policies that Red-tailed hawk had asked Elinruby to respect, in particular 6085: 8801: 8296:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 7814: 7049: 6908: 6639: 6194:

Belated reply - thanks for the link to the dataset, it's worth considering. Also - wondering if I missed it, but which RR issue was my European research mentioned in? Did it slip through the cracks?

5789: 5326: 5113:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 4479: 4383: 1908:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 800:

citation's access date (it still says "Retrieved 2012-07-11"), so even following your logic regarding the article text, one would have had to conclude that you did not actually inspect that source.

6352:- happy to post the latter, but since there seem to be considerable differences (starting from the title), perhaps you want to update it with the accepted version first? (Which is permissible per 9437: 9139: 7766: 7718: 9811:

If I make another wild submission or see one, I will normalize more casual rejection and raise expectations of extraordinary quality control and backing. I should have done that in this case.

7192:

requests to a chatbot. This also means that protecting the page may in fact doing these people a favor, preventing them from wasting their time. - In any case I have posted a note about this

5626: 9779:, there was a rough consensus that this principle remains true with current policies and guidelines and that there is not an exemption from this principle for asserting that an editor has a 7127:

I didn't notice the prior, longer protections. I also see that my gut instinct - that this was a limited-time, coordinated attack - was likely wrong. Hence the 1 week protection yesterday.

4894:? I didn't see anything in the letter linked in the article. If this is verified, a note needs to be added to that section (which I can do, or someone else can do, but it needs to happen). 8905:

We note, however, that the distribution of participants’ implicit bias scores was less stable across our preregistered studies than the distribution of participants’ explicit bias scores.

1467:, and also to check the Etherpad with the current todo list of papers to cover (to note which papers you covered, so as to avoid duplicate effort). The latter should always be linked in 6139: 4815: 8913:

Given these considerations, we view our implicit bias results as suggestive and emphasize our measure of participants’ explicit bias as our primary and most robust outcome of interest.

8312: 7602:

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics

5917:

2064 events, 172 in Arabic-speaking countries, 115 in Chinese-speaking areas, 114 in Spanish-speaking regions, 445 in the US, 472 in other English-speaking countries and 746 in areas

5129: 1924: 9265: 7916:

noted that this is not the common view of what happened and that an emphasis needs to be put that most of what is being said there is from an author's view not any authentic sources

4965:

If we could bury the hatchet for now, if you can get the Recent research up by about 23:00 UTC today (the 26th), I'll do my best to make sure it's copyedited before publication day.

4807: 1016: 9117: 8672: 8281: 7694: 5098: 4792: 2258:

manager around the end of the month due to holiday schedules. The writing deadline is set for the 27th. Should I expect your column around the deadline as usual? Maybe earlier? ☆

1894: 9801: 6249:

Thanks - happy to tweet, as before, but at the risk of repeating myself from above: Is there a freely accessible version? I assume T&F's policies haven't changed since April.

6060:

in case it seems that my input could be useful. As already indicated on the article talk page though, I would strongly recommend to focus your arguments on the content. Regards,

7035:

Please let me know what you think of this. I'm also reaching out to some other top contributors, but one of them has been banned, and another one hasn't been active since 2018.

3162: 8186: 6086:

Macro-level Differences in Participation in Sharing Economy: Factors Affecting Contributions to the Collective Intelligence Knowledge Platform across Different Asian Countries

4162:

The link I have added is one the best time-lapse video in the world. It was taken in California and it is an award winning photograph collection of more than 10,000+ images.

1149: 7701: 4917: 2935:

Excuse me what about habit cough where its method of transmission if revealed it could end this new phenomenon ? How can i find a source other than "see and notice" manner ?

8965:

which investigated such quality issues; the abstract specifically mentions Prolific's "nationally representative" option that was used in the Nature paper. (More generally,

8103:

Thanks for considering my "opinion orthodoxy" piece worth mentioning in the upcoming issue. I couldn't remember if I came up with that phrase or not, so went back and found

4931:, as important in creating quality content in the topic area. He also praises the Wikimedia Community and the Wikimedia Foundation for their dedication to the fight against 2105:

Take an hour if you need it. I need it. I also need a publisher. BTW, I think daylight savings time affected my time expectation (UTC didn't change) as well as the holiday.

787: 8899:

But, while I haven't yet read the entire paper that you're reviewing, it does actually seem that the authors are transparent about the test being controversial in general:

8574: 8189:

after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the

6092:. If a prospective reviewer needs an OA copy, let me know; I need to double check that journal's archival policies (I forgot the link to the website that helps with that). 5585: 2091:

I just saved a version (right before seeing your message) and could have it publishable in just a few minutes, but I can definitely use some extra time this time. Regards,

4824: 4784: 4103: 4055: 3911: 3517: 3455: 3285: 3189: 3051: 2844: 2274: 1008: 997: 812:(article talk pages are a better place for conversations about the actual article content, so that other editors can weigh in too - see also the note on top of this page.) 18:

In general, I prefer conversations about specific articles to be held on the corresponding article talk pages instead of here, so that other editors can follow them too.

9763: 9273: 6417:

Thank you. Keeping IANAL in mind, what do you think is a "personal website"? Would my profiles on academia or researchgate fit under that definition? (A also offers this

6012: 5908:. Self-focus, here, refers to focusing on one's home region or culture, and past studies found that about a quarter of most Wikipedias are about "self-focused topics". 1823: 1493: 1382: 1238: 926: 612: 564: 381: 6135: 9241: 5576: 6284:

people when replying on your talkpage? These days we have the subthread subscription too but I am not sure if it was active back then and I did not have it activated.

6019: 4002: 3858: 86: 4050: 3656: 3512: 2791: 2524: 2244: 2004: 1721: 1632: 1584: 1377: 1329: 1138: 1073: 7611: 6422: 3661: 3463: 2936: 2898: 362: 6359: 6299: 3906: 3608: 3376: 3280: 3142: 2839: 703: 325: 9992: 9896: 8347: 7954: 7862: 7646: 7453: 7309: 7261: 6812: 6735: 6263: 6089: 5837: 5674: 5422: 5374: 5164: 4837: 4780: 4699: 4527: 4335: 4287: 3027: 2414: 1769: 921: 873: 751: 520: 472: 225: 3797: 791: 9836: 7921: 2009: 1463:

Great, thank you! Always feel free to start the draft already if you have something to contribute. The only thing I would suggest is to start with the section

177: 4806:

on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the

9625:

You did not do what I asked you to do so I removed your enormous reiteration of misunderstandings. Please strive for accuracy in your comments about others.

2163: 1602: 1174:

Thank you for your courteous note, it is appreciated. I hadn't gotten to do much editing in recent weeks, but I just left another comment in that discussion.

7134:

upgraded it to a month today. Better than mine, but you're probably right that it will need protection almost immediately after Dennis' protection expires.

9987: 9432: 9384: 9336: 9306: 9067: 8254: 8093: 8045: 7448: 7400: 7256: 6903: 6801: 6730: 6634: 6586: 6174: 5994: 5321: 5060: 5031: 4978: 4618: 4166: 2600: 9264:

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the

4694: 4474: 824: 783: 531: 22: 8844: 7857: 7092: 6951: 6682: 5832: 5369: 4522: 4426: 9678: 3459: 3112: 625: 9480: 9182: 7809: 7761: 1464: 9081:

paper. Well, I am ready to roll on the rest of the issue. it's 6:30 AM so hopefully that TK will TK soon --otherwise a nap mayhaps and then rolling?

9037: 8649: 7713: 4664: 3482: 2471: 1974: 673: 8138: 6316:

Side note: do you think WMF should have grants for open access licencing of Knowledge research? I wonder if this is something for an OPED for TS...

5669: 995: 9688:

with Red-tailed hawk's concerns about a comment by Elinruby, where Red-tailed hawk cited that Noleander case among other policies. Is that correct?

8694: 3443: 3158: 9685: 9218:

Thank you and (and Gråbergs Gråa Sång) for bringing this to my attention. It looks like this paper indeed hadn't yet been on our radar, so I just

1951: 9818:. It is a crazy role. I am sorry for making it more stressful to you, obligating a response from you, and I will try to reduce pressure. Thanks. 5921:

192 events classified as Science & Nature, 714 in Notable Person, 337 in Sports, 299 in Politics, 231 in Man-made Incidents, and 291 as Other

2612: 2596: 5001: 4156:

Hello, HaeB. Hope you are doing great! I don't think that I made any mistake by adding this external link to the time-lapse photography page.

7028:. I have fixed some issues with that article, and I expanded it a little in some places, but I still feel that this is the right way to go per 4233: 4146: 4098: 3954: 3560: 3328: 3232: 3094: 2887: 2317: 1780: 1506: 9288: 6360:

https://en.wikiversity.org/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Where_experts_and_amateurs_meet:_the_ideological_hobby_of_medical_volunteering_on_Wikipedia

6300:

https://en.wikiversity.org/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Where_experts_and_amateurs_meet:_the_ideological_hobby_of_medical_volunteering_on_Wikipedia

4818:. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. 1866: 1536: 1425: 1281: 969: 655: 607: 424: 9720:

Yes, please feel free to remove yourself... I am not familiar with the proscess and was trying to follow Clovermoss's lead in who to notify.

8170: 6556: 5768:

Good grief... I was being cryptic assuming there would be only one and that I shouldn't draw attention to it. Will consult my friendly local

2384: 5274: 5018:

Aye, you do great work with it. Just trying to make things a little easier on JPxG. I copyedited what existed, not sure how much is coming.

129: 8814: 8224: 5802: 5257: 3771: 2055: 1347: 756: 10005: 9648:

and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the

9193: 8755:

was not sufficient); if space is too short for such an explanation, feel free to link to one on the article's talk page instead. Regards,

9644:

You are involved in a recently filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at

9620: 8180: 6120:

they allow the "Author’s Original Manuscript" to be shared in any venue, and the "Accepted Manuscript" on a "personal website". Regards,

1871: 8339: 5218: 5156: 4891: 2021:, just now, I realised that we had both forgotten a part of the history that explained why click-throughs did drop for a while, causing 9354: 8911:), and also highlight that they apparently primarily relied on an alternative, less questionable metric for their overall conclusions: 8893: 7370: 7012: 6700: 6005: 2287: 1691: 1143: 6256: 2897:

You could add citation needed to my undisputed edits instead of just deleting without knowing the facts and seeing the whole picture.

769: 9939: 8390: 7997: 7905: 7689: 7637: 7496: 7352: 7304: 6921: 6855: 6778: 5880: 5717: 5465: 5417: 5207: 4880: 4742: 4570: 4378: 4330: 3749: 2025:(see fundraising and Knowledge Graph references on that page – this is the year the WMF started exceeding its fundraising targets). 1251: 9891: 9589: 6450: 6379: 6118: 8996:

the paper or the supplement (e.g. regarding a third task. coding faces by gender, for which they also used MTurker, they say that

7827: 6788:

Hey, HaeB! Just wanted to check if you're aiming to have Recent research in this issue or the next, so I can be ready to copyedit.

6232:

another new paper of mine, which TL;DR can be sumarized as: Knowledge is not as popular in South Korea as in most other countries.

4165:

HaeB, it is my request to you please approve the change. This is not just a normal time-lapse video, it is work of someone's year.

3045: 2929: 2037: 8889:; for a more concise explainer targeting a lay audience one might try one of the journalistic articles highlighted approvingly by 5896:

The paper addresses the issue of systemic bias, and focuses on English, Chinese, Arabic and Spanish Wikipedias. The authors study

5271: 2621:

you had received 25 minutes earlier, about your persistent edit-warring over several days against several other editors to remove

9795: 7501: 2467: 1439:

because there were a couple of studies that caught my eye. Hoping you can still do your usual contribs for the upcoming issue. ☆

7641: 5923:

categories. To compare Knowledge's coverage to global media coverage, the author also associated their dataset with that of the

3184: 3000:, but it still needs a lot of work. I've asked my boyfriend to revise it a bit, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on this too. 2742: 2738: 2475: 9855: 9646:

Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Noleander

8886: 8259: 5076: 2954:

Saw this underneath the top bar on that Signpost article just now. Looks like you've just broken a milestone! Congratulations.

1554: 1090: 370: 4923:

extensive and detailed overview of how Knowledge volunteers covered the pandemic, and highlights the efforts of the dedicated

4832: 558: 9593: 7532: 7044: 6748: 5964: 5885: 5291: 3298: 3179: 2558: 2214: 1468: 1078: 3809: 2430: 2193: 2136: 2118: 2100: 1817: 9831: 9634: 8776: 8721: 8714:

now tell me these people aren't being biased in their conduct and editing, or that they don't have personal stakes here...

8699: 8690: 8533:

if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Knowledge. Cheers, --

8335: 7511:

questions about how you think generative AI will impact Knowledge, as well as about the kinds of work you do on Knowledge.

5152: 4588: 3734: 3147: 1947: 982: 295: 9196:

on under-representation and mischaracterization of Black and/or female figures on Knowledge, which was suggested to us by

8729: 4220:), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant 2645: 1161: 9187: 8063: 7779: 6383:(if you translate "Author’s Original Manuscript" to "Submitted version" and "Accepted Manuscript" to "Accepted Version"). 6381:

allow the "Author’s Original Manuscript" to be shared in any venue, and the "Accepted Manuscript" on a "personal website"

6015: 6014:. Knowledge shouldn't censor Polish scholars who cover the heroic efforts of the Poles to fight Germany and rescue Jews. 5512: 5470: 5177: 4939:

and in this reviewer experience, under-research topic, at least in English - for a recent French book on this topic, see

4911: 2705: 1230: 6418: 4540: 3448:

Hi there, could you please explain here why are you re-editing malicious and unreliable extremely defamatory contents?

8658: 7875: 7527: 7148:

HaeB, if Dennis wants to try a month, feel free to ping me in July if/when it starts back up, and I'll semi for a year.

2761: 2719: 1299: 1012: 7936: 6262:

That said, in this particular case your plight has since attracted the attention of a good Samaritan, who added it to

2981: 981:

User:Chinmay589 keeps vandalizing the page. From his edits, he seems to have a Conflict of Interest with the subject.

7141:

I'll poke around and see if it's common/possible to add an unprotected subpage that is open to non-confirmed editors.

4300: 4116: 3013: 2949: 2697: 2666: 2633: 2618: 2583: 2494: 1672: 1487: 1197: 1187: 891: 330: 9212: 8720:

or did you actually have a reason, you know, one you would have no issue posting here or on the talk page? ill wait

7515: 7514:

The project is funded by the Wikimedia Research Fund grant programme. You can find out more about the project here:

7123:

The RFPP section has already been archived, but since you pinged me, I didn't want to just ignore you. My thoughts:

6177:? (The WMF's privacy-motivated bucketing complicates statistical analyses, but there should be ways to handle that.) 5946: 9790: 7322: 5906:

while there is an indication of self-focus bias, there is also strong evidence of a global representation of events

5781: 5763: 4444: 2463: 2249: 770:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Conscientiousness&type=revision&diff=1028841253&oldid=1028841123

577: 75: 66: 57: 8631: 5066: 5000:

I am going to work on this a bit later today and will update the newsroom page once there is more to copyedit. As

4955: 4919:, here's my short review of "Knowledge as a trusted method of information assessment during the COVID-19 crisis". 2966: 2445: 2363: 990: 9957: 9753: 8966: 8686: 8360: 8331: 7182: 6873: 5777: 5736: 5148: 4811: 4205: 4174: 2997: 2419: 2124: 2078: 1943: 1430: 9197: 8206: 6353: 6287:

Anyway, reporting on my new papers since July, I think they the first two are more interesting for our readers:

2269: 9780: 9450: 8792: 7659: 7466: 6461:. So it seems clear that at least from their point of view, the answer to your second question is no. Regards, 5541: 4928: 4924: 2920:

about the CIA's capabilities in "tracking brain waves and reading minds", you can easily add it back. Regards,

2626: 2550: 2051: 2014:

Hey, we were discussing the other day what impact the Knowledge Graph panels had on Knowledge click-throughs.

1450: 1086:

you might have ideas on where to look for summaries of scholarly and non-scholarly assessments of Wiktionary. —

1043: 9743: 9729: 9715: 1152:

but you didn't get back after that. Please do join the continued discussion if you have time and good will. --

9109: 8421: 7633: 1795: 1643: 9762:, in which you may have been involved, has been closed and archived. The request was related to that case's 8764: 8173:. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page 1214: 8752: 8748: 8591: 8519: 8417: 8395: 8305: 8203: 6023: 5491: 5122: 4193: 4151: 4068: 3828: 3760: 3346: 2731: 2566: 1917: 195: 8474: 7205: 6104: 5620: 5037: 5013: 2944: 2906: 2561:

for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant

9725: 9700: 9660: 9649: 8643: 8317: 7518:

If you are interested, let me know and I will forward you some more detailed information on the project.

6392: 6075: 6069: 5339: 5134: 4712: 4396: 4241: 3007: 2940: 2902: 2604: 2570: 2322: 1929: 539: 366: 8796: 8442: 7948: 6807: 6244: 6223: 4281: 2972:

Oh nice, thanks for the heads-up! (Xtools says 50,187, but either way I entirely missed this.) Regards,

272: 9771:

will rarely serve a valid purpose to seek to classify the participants in the discussion on this basis.

9664: 9235: 9089: 8546: 8190: 8176: 8015: 7102:

Just to say I'm really liking your contributions to the current debate about the Orsini/Gitz business.

7062: 7025: 6652: 5850: 5773: 5748: 5740: 5732: 5240: 4788: 4221: 4204:

if you like to resolve this issue, take the dispute to talk and we can resolve it in the talk section.

4199: 3876: 3739: 3064: 2682: 2662: 2629:

within less than one hour, alongside separate concerns brought up by other editors about your editing).

2060: 9560: 8907:) So one might want to focus on their justification of still using it in their particular situation ( 8155:, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was 6173:

By the way - I haven't read the full paper so maybe I'm missing something, but did you consider using

4159:

The above videos on the page are just low quality and not expressing the "time-lapse" appropriately.

3790: 2033: 9510: 6981: 6517: 6492: 6470: 6437: 6412: 6328: 6275: 6229: 6206: 6189: 6154: 6129: 6082:

European Knowledge platforms, sharing economy and national differences in participation: a case study

6081: 5687: 5387: 4259: 3530: 3406: 3175: 2578: 1739: 1395: 843: 7007: 6304: 5252: 3700: 2917: 2175: 9500:

It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can

8856: 8770: 8736: 8725: 7967: 7629: 7226: 6971:

It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can

5505: 5267: 3972: 3924: 3438: 3396:

It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can

2651: 2450: 1836: 986: 9970: