Talk:WikiLove

Research on WikiLove

I was involved in the research project cited on the facing page. I am happy to answer any questions about that project, to the best of my ability. What kind of additional research would you like to see, Pete F? What concerns would additional research address for you? Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Jmorgan (WMF) I was looking for the WikiLove use reporting pages - I know I saw them somewhere, but cannot find them. This page counted and reported which templates where used and by whom. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Bluerasberry, I think what you're thinking of is a bot that Fæ created. The results are probably published in his userspace somewhere, I don't remember where. -Pete F (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Bluerasberry, Peteforsyth Wikilove is logged in the public replica databases, so we can find out about usage pretty easily with a little SQL. This query shows are all the people who have received WikiLove in the past year, ordered by number of messages received, and this query shows the people who have given WikiLove in the past year, ordered by number of loves given. Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Jmorgan (WMF) and LZia (WMF), glad to know there's opportunity for further research. Glad to know about the badge paper, I plan to read that as I consider next steps for the WIKISOO Burba Badge. I don't object to more research of course, but I'm not strongly advocating for it; mainly I think (as outlined in a bit more detail on the main page) that a clearer presentation of the outcomes of the past research would be very helpful. The main things I think would help would be (1) removal/clarification of the banner at the top of the page (stating that the research is ongoing), and (2) a 1-2 paragraph abstract that summarizes the findings of the research, with a few comments about the methodology and level of review. -Pete F (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Peteforsyth I updated the status of the research page to 'completed'. Thanks for the nudge—there are a lot of these zombie projects in the research namespace right now, unfortunately, since that space has gone un-curated for long spans of time. Regarding an abstract of the findings and details of the methodology: this is fair request, and due diligence is important, but before I or anyone else takes on the non-trivial work of digging up, recalling, or reproducing details about a 4-year old project, I guess I'd like to know what that work will benefit. The way you phrased your original post in the 'support' section of the facing page, it sounds to me like you're saying that we need more research before we can decide whether to implement WikiLove on Meta. If that's the case, then I'd like to know more about what kind of research you think would be necessary. I'll be frank: I do not personally see why implementing WikiLove on Meta should be in any way controversial, especially if its implemented as an opt-in gadget, as Bluerasberry proposes. I also don't know who would perform any additional research. I think WikiLove research is interesting (as evidenced by my WikiLove research), but I have plenty of interesting things to work on right now, and its not clear when I (or someone like LZia (WMF) could fit new research in. Basically, are you asking for WMF research staff to perform work before the community discussion can proceed? If so, might be a while ;) Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Jmorgan (WMF), I think if there is a reason to do research, there is usually a reason to take steps to ensure its reults are communicated in a useful way. I thought this project was still underway, so please take my comments in that context. It seems like the audience was a bit of an afterthought in this case. -Pete F (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth: I have not done a report of wikilove, but I have for the use of thanks. You can see the reports for selected projects at User:Faebot/thanks. I was asked to write up a piece about it as there are issues with making summary reports that are not anonymized, in fact I had to introduce an opt-out of reporting, at the current time 6 accounts are skipped and the German Wikipedia opted out of any reporting as a project by consensus. --Fæ (talk) 10:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Fæ, thanks. Yes, I did get mixed up between WL and the Thank feature. -Pete F (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Opt-in enabling?

If there is controversy about this, can this be enabled by opt-in? I can imagine some people would object to everyone having it, but anyone who makes their way to meta and wants to use WikiLove will know how to turn it on if that is an option. The additional benefits of having it on by default for everyone may not be worth the discussion, since almost everyone who would use this is the kind of user that can enable special features if they are available. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Further research

I have unwittingly sparked a discussion about what research should be done on WikiLove. Having looked into it a bit more, I think there are central hypotheses about WikiLove that were strongly expressed at its launch (in a blog post which generated substantial media coverage). In my view, any software feature announced with a theory of what kind of impact it will have, should be accompanied by research that tests those hypotheses. I think this practice is largely absent from the Wikimedia software development process, so I'm not arguing that WikiLove is more deserving of further research than other software features; but I believe this does offer a very clear illustration of what should be tested.

Quotes from the first paragraph of the blog post:

We all like to feel valued.

Has WikiLove resulted in users feeling more valued?

According to the 2011 survey of Wikipedia editors (see top-line data), among 17 variables, “being looked down on by more experienced editors” is the most likely to cause people to say they will edit less frequently (69% agreement),

Has WikiLove resulted in less instances of people being looked down on by more experienced editors?

while “having others compliment you on your edits/articles” is the most likely to cause people to say they will edit more frequently (78% agreement).

Has WikiLove resulted in more instances of people getting complimented on their edits/articles?

On the other hand, editing Wikipedia has tended to become harder over time, and the likelihood that new users will receive correction/criticism has increased.

Is the nature of correction/criticism better as a result of WikiLove?

Etc.

For an example of this kind of research, I would highly recommend the work of Haiyizhu, for instance Organizing without Formal Organization (2012), which studied the effects of Collaboration of the Week programs. -Pete F (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Jmorgan (WMF) -- just want to be sure you saw this. -Pete F (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Peteforsyth. I think you have laid out an excellent set of research questions. I'm familiar with Zhu's work, and agree that the study you cited is an appropriate model for evaluating the impact of interventions like WikiLove in a "natural experiment" setting like Wikipedia. You're probably won't be too surprised that I agree completely with your point that WMF ought to evaluate the things that WMF builds, and that each new feature that is proposed for development should be accompanied by a well-articulated theory of impact. However, I cannot make any promises that WikiLove will be evaluated by WMF staff, as it was developed as a side project by Kaldari, is 5 years old, and is not currently supported by any product team at WMF. This would be a great project for an IEG grant to a community member or an academic researcher, and I would support that person any way I could. Cheers, Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Support for another discussion about enabling Wikilove

As it has been a few years now, if you would like to have another discussion about enabling Wikilove on the Meta-wiki, sign below. A significant demonstration of support for discussing this could be a basis for a renewed discussion.

1. Ijon (talk) 07:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
2. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
3. Tito Dutta (talk) 13:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
4. Sure, it would be good to have a discussion that is well informed by research. On a side note though, the page you link, Ijon seems a bit opaque to me. It's difficult to decipher the conclusions from the hypotheses (the dates of the images under "results" are very similar to the proposal date), the dates are not clearly expressed on the main page, the strength of the conclusions, how (if at all) they were reviewed by others, etc. The banner at the top says it's "in progress," but the page hasn't been updated since 2012. In the intervening four years, at least one of the key personnel has left their position; and two of the other key personnel are listed as having "summer" positions, which would suggest they have not been working on this since. Perhaps, prior to opening such a discussion, somebody could synthesize and (if appropriate) expand the information presented, to support a better-informed deliberation. -Pete F (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

   see talk page for more general discussion of WL research. -Pete F (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

   (I was not the one who added the link to the Research namespace page.) The best person I can think of to offer a summary of the current situation is Kaldari. Ijon (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

   Hi Pete F. I recently had a discussion with Ashton Anderson, one of the authors of this work to expand his research by bringing (a modified version of) some of his findings to Wikipedia, potentially by engaging some communities who are interested to experiment in this area. The hardest component of the work/research for introducing barnstars in a more systematic way to Wikipedia is getting the culture right. If you're interested in this topic, I'd be happy to start working on this project earlier rather than later. Just let me know. --LZia (WMF) (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

   Continuing discussion on the talk page (Jmorgan (WMF), Ijon, LZia (WMF). -Pete F (talk) 17:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

5. Shocked, that it's not here. --ViraMotorko (WMUA) (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

autoconfirmed

so u have to be autoconfirmed to use it Steven1825 (talk) 19:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)