Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-03-31/Recent research

Article display preview:

TKTK – TKTK

TKTK Worthwhile Canadian initiative TKTK

TKTK Nemo enim ipsam voluptatem, quia voluptas sit, aspernatur aut odit aut fugit, sed quia consequuntur magni dolores eos. TKTK

This is a draft of a potential Signpost article, and should not be interpreted as a finished piece. Its content is subject to review by the editorial team and ultimately by JPxG, the editor in chief. Please do not link to this draft as it is unfinished and the URL will change upon publication. If you would like to contribute and are familiar with the requirements of a Signpost article, feel free to be bold in making improvements!

This draft article ...

N ... has no title defined.
N ... has no blurb defined.
N ... is not yet ready to be copyedited.
N ... has not yet been copyedited.
N ... does not have an image.
N ... is not yet approved for publication.

Writer resources ...

The Newsroom (talk)

deadlines

Writing: 1 September 21:00 (15 days left; 83%)

Publishing: 2 September 21:00 (16 days left; 84%)

There are 14 days, 21 hours, 52 minutes and 39 seconds until deadline. (refresh)

Last revised 14:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC) (5 years ago) by Tbayer (WMF) (refresh)

← Back to Contents

View Latest Issue

31 March 2019

Recent research

(Your article's descriptive subtitle here)

Contribute —

By ...

A monthly overview of recent academic research about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects, also published as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter.

Review 1

Reviewed by ...

Review 2

Reviewed by ...

Briefly

Conferences and events

See the research events page on Meta-wiki for upcoming conferences and events, including submission deadlines.

Other recent publications

Other recent publications that could not be covered in time for this issue include the items listed below. contributions are always welcome for reviewing or summarizing newly published research.

Compiled by ...

"..."

From the abstract:

"..."

From the abstract:

"..."

From the abstract:

"..."

From the abstract:

References

Supplementary references:

← Previous "Recent research"

In this issue

31 March 2019 (all comments)

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

Just started reading, and already it looks like a good Signpost. Something useful; the past few weeks have been a busy season for coaching edit-athons, and now I see I should be encouraging "persistent" rather than "prolific" editing by newbies. We indeed are the prolific; our idea of fun is to spend hours most every day at this, and we want to recruit more like us. However, that will come, if it does, after our new editors return a few times per week for an hour or so. I can advise that when they run across an interesting fact or story, they should check WP for background, and then study the articles for the possibility of improvement. Or, watchlist articles they have already edited, and return once or twice a week to find, understand, evaluate and maybe repair the work of fellow editors old and new. Always we old-timers can learn something new and useful. Jim.henderson (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The study is interesting (though perhaps unsurprising) especially in light of the recent CMU proposal. I'm interested in why it is being covered now, when it was published in 2016. Calidum 04:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See also m:Research:Testing capacity of expressions of gratitude to enhance experience and motivation of editors for upcoming work on whether saying thanks encourages people to return. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Explore Wikipedia history by browsing The Signpost archives.

Home

About