Twisting the bytes

The Wikipedia Editor Survey 2011, published last April, emphasized the importance of explicit acknowledgement and recognition of effort among Wikipedia editors as an instrumental factor to sustaing and grow its community over the next years (page 4):

Positive Reinforcement: Acknowledging the effort of editors is important to reverse the editor decline. It is a commonly held view that editors just want to see their articles improve and read by lots of people and they don’t care about the opinion of their peers. This is false. The survey finds that acknowledgement of peers via a nice note or a barnstar (or kitten) is valued even more highly than achieving featured article status. To sustain and grow our community, we need to provide each other with positive feedback, and we should create tools to make it easy to do so.

In fact, this is the central argument of “El Potlatch Digital: Wikipedia y el Triunfo del Procomún y el Conocimiento Compartido” ["The Digital Potlatch: Wikipedia and the Triumph of Commons and Shared Knowledge"], a new book that I have written along with Joaquín Rodríguez, vice-dean of EOI. The book has been published in Spanish by Ediciones Cátedra, and now it should be available in your favourite book shop.

Participation in Internet communities has been a fascinating topic for researchers, practitioners and members of these communities. A previous study by Michlmayr, Robles and González-Barahona showed evidence of lasting volunteer participation in Debian. In this work, they defined the half-life of contributors as the “the time required for a certain population of maintainers to fall to half of its initial size”. Their estimation for the half-life in Debian was 7.5 years. In other words, after 7.5 years of project evolution we can still find 50% of the initial Debian maintainers participating in the project. Enough said about commitment of Debian developers.

In the case of larger online communities like Wikipedia we need to account for the effects of casual contributors versus more active and experienced editors. In any case, our study on the inequality of contributions to Wikipedia, published in 2008, shows that the balance between casual and very active contributors has remained stable since many years ago (2004). Even more interesting is the fact that this balance did not experimented any variation from 2007 onwards, despite the well-known “plateau effect” in the monthly number of edits to the largest Wikipedias starting that year.

Unfortunately, it is not possible to infer possible causes behind this behavioral patterns from observational studies like these ones. What does it make participants to stay in online communities? What factors motivate them to contribute? Why do they stop participating? This book is an attempt to shed some light on this, mixing empirical results with qualitative investigation (interviews to editors in the Spanish Wikipedia).

Our conclusion is clear: meritocracy and effort recognition has a central role in the motivation of contributors in collaborative habitats like Wikipedia. This resembles the Potlatch, an example that let us understand how in certain contexts we need to give away our capital (material or intangible) so that the community can give it back to us as acknowledgment, recognition and renown. As a result, in these collaborative habitats the working capital does not have a monteray but a symbolic nature, under the form of reputation and popularity, and the logic of its accumulation demands unselfishness to create antoher form of social value. We don’t claim that this example is valid for all kind of Internet communities, but some of the best-known cases (such as Wikipedia) exemplify the triumph of shared knowledge and Commons over other individualistic strategies.

PS: We believed that it was a great opportunity to publish this book in Spanish, specially with a reputated publisher such as Alianza, given the lack of books about Wikipedia in our native language. However, we would be very happy to have this book also available in English. So if you can help please let us know!

Last week, one of the most popular questions asked by journalists, bloggers and other people reflecting on the 10 years of Wikipedia was: what are the main challenges for Wikipedia over the next 10 years? In my list of answers, I remarked conflicts around self-promotion in Wikipedia as one of the topics that will create many issues in due course. Indeed, with more than 400 million unique monthly visitors, according to comScore data, Wikipedia is now the 5th most visited website. That also make it a major attraction for experts in promotion, PR services, marketing and advertising.

What I didn’t expected (honestly) is that, one week after that, I would be able to find an exemplary case of this kind of issues. I’ve just discovered WikiExperts, a division of OnlineVisibilityExperts, which offers (I quote verbatim):

INCREASE VISIBILITY AND CREDIBILITY of your company, brand, or product by being present in Wikipedia – world’s largest and most used research tool. Wikipedia has more traffic than Twitter, LinkedIn, MySpace, Delicious and almost all other social media. Your social media marketing strategy is incomplete without it.

For anyone familiar with Wikipedia policies, it’s obvious that this service comes into conflict with one of the things Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means for promotion. If we take a closer look at the previous blurb, we can find some questionable points. The statement that Wikipedia is “the world’s largest and most used research tool” is very clever, but somewhat biased. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Thus, it can be used (in the adequate way) to start our own research, pointing us to more authoritative information sources. Wikipedia’s accuracy depends, among other things, on the many reviews from volunteer editors and support from outside, reliable information sources (a.k.a [citation needed]). It’s just the first step, not the end of the journey. Another point quickly grabbed my attention. These folks are explicitly considering Wikipedia as a key part of a social media marketing strategy, comparing it to Twitter, MySpace or LinkedIn. Should we really do that? Well, I think the answer is: no, we shouldn’t.

Many people tend to think about social media in terms of audience and outreach. Today, marketing and PR experts constantly follow global trends to identify where (phisically or, now more frequently, virtually) we spend most of our time. It would be really tempting to consider Wikipedia as a great platform for promotion. Except for the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which imposes some restrictions not shared by other social media. In Twitter, for example, I am free to talk about anything I want to. And this also includes expressing my very personal point of view about any topic. However, in Wikipedia editors must follow certain policies, in particular the five pillars. More precisely, NPOV is incompatible with promotional purposes about topics in which one might have direct interests (such as charging for writing a Wikipedia article on behalf of a certain company, organization or individual).

All the same, we can even find the WikiExperts code of ethics, where they state they adhere to Wikipedia policies, such as avoiding opinionated, biased or unsupported content, not removing negative information, writing about not notable topics or performing activities contrary to Wikipedia principles. Even after reading this, one wonders how this could be ever achieved if you are being payed, explicitly, to improve the public image your contractor. We must also note that this is quite different from initiatives such as the Public Policy Initiative or scientists improving Wikipedia entries on RNA biology. These editors doesn’t have a direct interest in presenting  a certain point of view. They just want to improve Wikipedia’s coverage about those topics, for the common good. It is very difficult to assert that you can do the same if you are an interested party in a “social media marketing strategy”.

This is not the first time promotional affairs have been detected in Wikipedia. In his excellent book, Andrew Dalby points out some examples such as Marshall Poe or Boy*d Up (this one apparently misinterpreted). As time goes by and Wikipedia popularity continues to increase, I’m afraid that we will see a significant increment of these actions. However, we must remember that Wikipedia is not just like any other social media. If Wikimedia Foundation is working to keep it going without advertisements, it is for very good reasons (like preserving the NPOV pillar). Any other attempt of circumventing these basic policies would be just trying to subvert the principles of Wikipedia itself, those that led it to become the flagship reference for open content that it is today.

As a final remark, let me clearly state that I’m not arguing against the business of social media management or PR. On the contrary, companies should care about building a better image in the virtual world, and creating more agile communication channels within their own community, as well as with customers. In fact, Wikipedia has developed some mechanisms for on-line social interaction, but this is wholly aimed to support debate on writing encyclopedic articles.

Some time ago, I read a paragraph on the book “Producing Open Source Software“, by Karl Fogel, explaining the need to write down conventions and agreements that have become essential for daily life in an open source community. In this way, people joining your community at a later point can quickly grasp its folklore and tacit rules (not only techincal rules, but also for social interaction).

Since the book is licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0, I can post the following excerpt to illustrate the above point:

Don’t try to be comprehensive. No document can capture everything people need to know about participating in a project. Many of the conventions a project evolves remain forever unspoken, never mentioned explicitly, yet adhered to by all. Other things are simply too obvious to be mentioned, and would only distract from important but non-obvious material. For example, there’s no point writing guidelines like “Be polite and respectful to others on the mailing lists, and don’t start flame wars,” or “Write clean, readable bug-free code.” Of course these things are desirable, but since there’s no conceivable universe in which they might not be desirable, they are not worth mentioning. If people are being rude on the mailing list, or writing buggy code, they’re not going to stop just because the project guidelines said to

Well, I completely agree with this point of view. However, over the past years FLOSS has become quite popular among a broader audience. And we have to acknowledge that some of these new participants may not have this very simple, but fundamental perspective in mind, for multiple reasons. There have always been many examples of this kind, since human relationships are complex and frequently not as precise as we would need them to be in the digital world, without direct face-to-face interaction. But there was a general perception about a growing number of cases were good manner and politeness were flagrantly obviated, and not only in open source communities, but also in other open coumminites around free knowledge production.

That’s why this recent post on Jono Bacon’s blog quickly got my attention. Jono is the Ubuntu community manager, and he’s quite respected for his extensive experience in this role. He’s also the author of the authoritative book about Community management, “The Art of Community“. Once a year, he also hosts the Community Leadership Summit. I think these are strong arguments for taking his word for this. I really love this part:

I love to have a good debate, and I am never afraid to shake hands and say “let’s just agree to disagree” or calmly not participate.

In fact, a growing number of participants in debates (not only in virtual communities, but also in live debates, let alone TV shows) think that the ultimate goal is to completely convince the other interlocutors who don’t share their own point of view. However, the most positive side of debates is actually to exchange different points of view. Of course, there are key differences, depending on the topic. Sometimes, you discuss really technical stuff, and there are quite clear arguments in favor of a certain solution (for efficiency reasons, development guidelines, readability, maintainability, compatibility, etc.). But some other times, the arguments just express opinions on a certain issue, and there may be different points of view.

One way or the other, I think that this call for respect in open communities is really in place, right now. And thus I fully support its aim. Please, help to spread the word and preserve the healthy spirit of open collaboration around free knowledge.

Over the past 4 years, I’ve been an avid consumer of open content, mainly images and text licensed under CC-BY-SA (my favourite license ever). 90% of times, I collect it to prepare slides and other learning materials for university courses, training sessions, lectures or conferences (the other 10% is just for fun, since I love photography and I release all my works under CC-BY-SA). I think we still have a long way to go to faciliate the search, creation and reuse of open content. And now, I have a great opportunity to share my experience with other people and learn other points of view.

Starting tomorrow till Friday Nov. 5, I’ll be in Barcelona attending Mozilla Drumbeat Festival 2010. I admit I have high expecations on this unconference/festival or whatever name you give to an event that will bring together ~400 persons around OER and the Web. You can check the program here. The Festival has been designed as a forum to foster participation and quick interaction (maybe, it reminds me our great Open Space sessions in WikiSym, but on a larger scale)

Some of the sessions I plan to attend will cover different perspectives of a very important topic: how people create and reuse open content on the Web. In this line, we have for instance a session on “How to encourage content reuse”, another one exploring how to build better platforms to find open content (“Pathways to open content”) and finally, a brainstorming session about “The next big thing in OER”. Thus, I’ve been thinking about these issues, what they have in common and how we can solve any problems that open content creators and users may find. This is my attept to summarize my thoughts, so far.

From my personal experience, and according to comments from other colleagues, there are 3 main issues impacting open content reuse:

1. Understanding which license to choose: We have many different licenses to choose for our content. However, many people still feel ok licensing their work under a Non-Commercial clause. While it’s true that this is a positive step towards openess, I think we also need to remind why licenses including NC clauses are not compliant with the Open Knowledge Definition.
2. Searching for open conent: Still today, almost a decade after CC was created, it is still a pain in the neck to find open content on the web. Well, I don’t mean it’s difficult to find any open content or good open content (just visit Wikimedia Commons and let me know what you think). I mean it’s very time-consuming to find the open content you need for a certain cituation (exercise: find an image depicting a fire flame, with decent quality, not including a candle, lincensed under CC-BY-SA. How much time did it take you?).
3. Using and storing open content: Finally, you found that great image for your slides. OK, you save it on a local folder, you include the image and link the original author (if needed), and you include a licensing comment. You’re done. Now, say that 3 months after that, you need again some images you already downloaded. You go to your local folder and… you don’t remember neither the author nor the license for most of them (if not all). You need to open the file where you used them to search for that info, or you search the web again (and pray for the search results to remain unaltered over the past 3 months). Sometimes, you end up including a long string on the file name to record this info, but that’s not very handy to tidy your stuff, right?

What we find here is the absence of a standarized, seamless support for embedding critical information in open content files (specially author info and license type). What if your favourite text processor or presentations software already tracks for you the author and license info and includes a footnote automatically? What if you can automatically create a table of licenses and authors in LaTeX? And my favourite ones: file managers. How about opening a local folder with Dolphin (or Nautilus, or Gwenview…), right click on your mouse and select “arrange files by author and license type”? They could also present a small note with that info on mouse rollover.

In summary, the root of all these issues (educating your users, finding open content on the web and leveraging the use of open content in academia and other contexts) is the lack of a standarized support to embed open content relevant info in multimedia files. Pierre Far, who’s leading the session on “Pathways to open content”, suggested a possible solution: XMP. This is an example solution for standard support to include information of file contents in the file header. It also supports many different types of multimedia files (including making use of EXIF heders we photographers love in JPEG files). But there may be others. I don’t mind what we finally choose, as long as everyone agree to use the same standard.

Conclusion: if we aspire to get real support from end-users to open content, we must help them offering seamless suspport to perform daily tasks required in the new workflow (dealing with licenses and author info). With this apparently simple step, we would shoot down all problems above with a very simple but effective move. Time for other people to jump in the discussion, and stadards masters to start thinking about this.

Looking forward to meeting you in Barcelona!

The Illumos announcement, aired last August 3, may be the soap of this Summer. But it can also be the starting point of a story that will leave a memorable footprint in open source software. And that is not because of the project itself, which is cool. It is not because it shows some interesting advantages of open source software business models.

Above all (and if everything stays the same), we will remember this affair due to the huge opportunity Oracle is missing in this precise moment. Oracle is missing a healthy project, OpenSolaris, with a committed community of users and developers around the world, in one of the most critical market segments at this moment: high performance operating system platforms. What a blunder…

Read more…

OK, now it’s time for Wikimania 2010 summary. I’ve been thinking a lot on the best way to concentrate my thoughts in a short way. I think the best one is this: whenever I attend a conference/meeting, and I have real difficulties to decide which session to attend (because all of them are terrific) is a good signal. Well, every minute I spent in Wikimania 2010, I felt like that. “Mmmm, look at this one….but wait! I wanted to attend that one, as well… Oh no! Strategy Plan at the same time I’m giving one of my talks … What the heck!”.

I admit it was pretty easy that this occurred to me, because: a) this was my first Wikimania; b) I gave too many talks (3!), thus missing other interesting slots and c) I wasn’t ready for the really active ambient of Wikimania. But, let’s go on with some futher details, since I have some “mixed feelings” about certain points.

Read more…

Finally, I had some time to write about the experiences in WikiSym and Wikimania 2010. Let’s start with the first one.

WikiSym 2010 has been special in many aspects. The Symposium and Program Committees were appointed between Dec. 2009 and Jan. 2010. Thus, we had only 6 months to rush into everything (CfP, venue location, logistics, proceedings, etc.). We decided that it was a good idea to search for synergies with another important conference celebrated every year: Wikimania 2010. Gdańsk was a very attractive city, and potential interactions between attendees to both events could be great. In the end, we packed a very interesting week, overlapping both events. However, the challenge was also to test if both communities would be able to find common points of interest. Besides this, WikiSym 2010 explicitly broadened the scope of the conference, to welcome  presentations on Open Collaboration in general, beyond the scope of wiki platforms. So, many things to discover!

Read more…

These days, I’ve been thinking again about the problems related with mining social network info. I’m still astonished at Facebook decision of suing Peter Warden because he gathered a massive collection of Facebook data. He was liable just because he wanted to disclose the set to researchers worldwide. Today, I read (via tweet from Ed Chi) an article on NYTimes saying that a growing number of companies are making business with end-user data. At least, their plans are clear… more or less. But I still wonder whether FB and Twitter users were aware of this side-effect: that FB and Twitter can discover a lot of things mining their public accounts. And sell results to private companies interested in them. After all, the best market study is one covering feedback from several million customers, right?

This leads to a natural question: who owns the content posted on social networks sites? Can other companies mine that data? What if my profile is public? How about  someone collecting, say, one trillion of tweets from public streams?  Could Twitter sue that person, just like FB attorneys did to Peter Warden?

Read more…

Today we have announced at Libresoft, the research group in which I work at University Rey Juan Carlos, a new research project sponsored by Wikimedia Deutschland, the German chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation.

The goal of the project will be to study, from a quantitative point of view, the impact of the flagged revisions extension on the editorial activity of the German Wikipedia. We will focus on the effect of this new tool to reduce the vandalism from anonymous users, while measuring possible influence on other key aspects like the trends of contributions from anonymous editors or the number of new registered contributors.

I’d like to say thank you to Wikimedia Deutschland for this opportunity. Hopefully, this will be just a starting point for more interesting projects about Wikipedia and massive on-line communities at Libresoft.

We expect to publish the results before Wikimania 2010, so that we can present a brief summary there of our findings to all Wikipedians and attendees in the conference. So… stay tunned!!

For more information, read the official announcement at Libresoft website.

No, this is not just a play on words. So far, I’ve collected some background examples to illustrate this apparent contradiction: public data on the Internet may be not so public. To be more precise, data privacy rights and other interests from some companies can play a major role in this problem.

As a researcher on open on-line communities (and open here is a synonym of publicly accessible virtual groups), this is a key concern for me. Likewise, it should be important for many other colleagues in this field, and the myriad of companies collecting and mining huge data sets on a daily basis. Let me show you some examples.

On March 26-27 I attended the CPOV conference in Amsterdam, organized by the Institute of Network Cultures. In the same session, Stuart Geiger presented an overview of the influence of Wikipedia bots in the editorial work of the community. One example quickly got my attention: HagermanBot. This bot was created to look for unsigned comments on Wikipedia talk pages, then automatically insert the signature of the corresponding author next to them. The bot raised a strong controversy among users, since many of them thought that the guideline of signing comments on talk pages was just that, a recommendation, not a rule to be enforced. Some could be embarrased by login names displayed next to comments. Wait a minute: isn’t that information public? Yes, of course it is. Just click on the history tab and you get the revision history page, tracking all comments and their corresponding authors. Read more…