Hi, sorry to take so long to reply to your message. It's convention at Wikipedia to leave new messages at the bottom of the page, and as I was moving country at the start of September, I didn't see your message until now!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
hi, thanks for your kind words. I am working in extreme time pressure to submit a long delayed book (ironically, also on timing in modern society) and I will zero in on Wikimania presentation at the last minute, alas :( Pundit|utter15:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, and I realized that what the researcher has is not what I would like to have. I want to see the deleted content to possibly rebuild it, they can just see the history of deletion. Unfortunately, WP does not offer this right alone. Thank you for answering... although I'm curious, where did you see that? - Theornamentalist (talk) 11:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, just say you're doing a survey! I'm sure the majority of people won't mind. We all fill out gender/race surveys all the time, at least in the U.S. Some people won't respond, but that's to be expected. And good luck! I'll be very curious to see the results of you research. (Oh, and add country of origin if you don't know already. I'd be curious to see the array of who's from where.) jengod (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jengod! I'll let you know the results as soon as I get something! About country, I agree this is an interesting bit of info but we don't want to put too much into the survey for now. Thanks again! --phauly (talk) 07:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
.
/* Survey on gender */
Hi! I'm Liria Veronesi (User:Akoha77) and, together with Paolo Massa (User:Phauly), I'm starting an empirical research on "Gender and votes in requests for adminship". For this reason, we need to know the gender of Wikipedians who were candidated to become admins.
We tried looking for the templates User:UBX/male and User:UBX/female but only 4 admins use it. We also used the API for getting the gender field in the profile but, out of 1744 admins, only around 400 have filled this field. But we would benefit from a larger coverage, i.e. possibly knowing the gender of 100% of candidates.
So, after asking for advise to 3 admins and receiving 2 positive replies (1 and 2), we decided to try to ask directly to Wikipedians.
Thus, would you be so kind to write your gender [Male / Female / Other], together with a text comment if you want, on my talk page at User_talk:Akoha77? If you prefer to send me this information privately, you can send me an email, the information will be kept confidential and never shared.
We're wrapping up the democratic rules approval process. Please see Wikipedia:Trading card game/Action plan/Phase 1:Rules/Rules approval and review the ruleset. If no changes are made to it within 7 days, then we will proceed next week with the card nomination and approval process.
If you are no longer interested in helping out with the project, please remove your name from the participants list.
According to our April mini-census, we have 15 active members, 6 semi-active ones and 45 inactive. Out of those, 4 active, 3 semi-active and 1 inactive members have added themselves to corresponding categories since the mini-census. The next one is planned, roughly, for sometime next year. The membership list has been kept since 2004.
On that note, nobody has ever studied WikiProjects from the sociological perspective... if you are interesting in researching Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Research and wiki-research-l listerv.
Moving from research to teaching, did you know that many teachers and instructors are teaching classes with Wikipedia? This idea is getting support from the Wikimedia Foundation, and some really useful tools have been created recently. I have experience with that, having taught several undergad classes, so feel free to ask me questions on that!
And as long as I am talking about professional issues, if any of you is going to any sociological conferences, do post that to our project - perhaps other members are going there too?
In other news: the a automated to do listing reported in the April issue went down shortly afterwards, but seems to be on the path to reactivation. We still have an active tag and assess project, and comparing the numbers to the April report, we have identified about 350 more sociology-related articles (from 1,800 to 2,150) and assessed about 100 (from 1,300 to 1,400).
We now have a listing of most popular sociology-related pages. It is updated on the 1st of every month, starting with August, and reports which of our sociology-tagged articles are most frequently read. Of course, GIGO holds true, so after looking at it right now and trying to determine what is our most popular article, my first action was to shake my head and remove Criminal Minds (which, perhaps not too surprisingly, outranks all sociology articles in period tested). Second item I noticed it this month's Industrial Revolution, beating Criminal Minds, that moved from close to 30th position in August/September, to 9th in October and 2nd in November. If you'd like to discuss this or any other trends, please visit WT:SOCIOLOGY!
Finally, with the reactivation of Article Alerts, we are getting our own here. Bookmark that page so you can keep track of sociology related deletion debates, move debates, good and feature article discussions, and more.
Thanks for the message. I find cultural/epistemological differences across Wikipedia versions fascinating, so I was excited to stumble upon Manypedia. It's an great tool, and made for a very interesting class activity and subsequent assignment which you saw. Since coming across it I've wanted to make time to explore its seemingly great potential for research (both as a tool and object of study). Needless to say, I'd love to open a dialogue. Were there one or two articles in particular that caused you to see a need for something like Manypedia?
