IRC office hours/Office hours 2013-04-22

Office hour with WMF researchers on April 22, 2013
Times listed in Pacific Standard Time

[18:00:29] <Pine> OK, it's time, let's start.
[18:00:32] <DarTar> alright, I think we can get started
[18:00:33] <Pine> Thanks for coming everyone.
[18:00:43] <sj__> hi dartar, halfak
[18:00:51] <TOS> ahem ahem
[18:00:55] <DarTar> hi everybody
[18:00:55] <halfak> Hi sj__
[18:00:58] <Pine> Let's start by having our researchers and analysts introduce themselves and give a brief overview of what they're working on.
[18:01:04] <TOS> Hi DarTar
[18:01:06] <Pine> DarTar: want to start?
[18:01:09] <DarTar> hey
[18:01:21] <DarTar> sure, just two line of context
[18:01:36] <Ironholds> Pine: sure, I will
[18:01:41] <DarTar> this may well be the first office hours with WMF analysts
[18:02:00] <DarTar> so far we've had project-specific office hours
[18:02:17] <DarTar> but I'm glad Pine prodded us, it's a great idea and if it works we should do this more often
[18:02:55] <DarTar> so my name is Dario and I'm a researcher with the Product Development department
[18:03:59] <Pine> What are you currently working on?
[18:03:59] <DarTar> I'm here with halfak (also working in Product), J-Mo (Learning & Evaluation), Haithams (Programs)
[18:04:15] <DarTar> erosen (also from L&E) should join us later
[18:04:33] <HenriqueCrang> hi guys
[18:04:34] <DarTar> so I'll get started with a short intro on my work
[18:04:35] <erosen> i'm here
[18:04:42] <J-Mo> Hi Evan!
[18:04:43] <DarTar> wow erosen that was fast :)
[18:04:50] <DarTar> hey HenriqueCrang
[18:04:51] <Haithams> Hi everyone.
[18:05:03] <DarTar> so I should add HenriqueCrang to the list
[18:05:17] <jonas_agx> hey HenriqueCrang : J-Mo are you Jonathan?
[18:05:25] <J-Mo> yep
[18:05:36] <HenriqueCrang> DarTar, yep :)
[18:05:43] <DarTar> HenriqueCrang is currently working with the Brazilian community and ptwiki
[18:05:56] <DarTar> so two lines of intro on my work
[18:06:41] <DarTar> I've working in Product for about 2 years, doing data analysis and research for a bunch of features that we tested
[18:07:25] <DarTar> including AFT (v4 - v5), MoodBar, Editor Engagement experiments, more recently Echo
[18:08:08] <DarTar> I work closely with software engineers / UX designers, product managers and other researchers to set up test and evaluation plans for these features
[18:08:28] <Pine> J-Mo want to go next?
[18:08:57] <Pine> And thanks a ton to J-Mo for helping me to set this up.
[18:08:59] <J-Mo> sure!
[18:09:12] <J-Mo> I started with the Summer of Research 2011, worked with Sarah, Siko and Heather on the Teahouse...
[18:09:56] <J-Mo> more recently I've been working with the Brazil program on re-booting WikiProject Medicina for editor engagement on, doing some analyses for WEP and helping set up the IEG infrastructure. Kind of a grab-bag lately ;)
[18:10:20] <J-Mo> eom
[18:10:31] <DarTar> Haithams: wanna go next?
[18:11:10] <Haithams> sure.
[18:11:34] <Haithams> During the past year I helped design and run campaigns for editor recruitment from developing regions/global south, where in particular I worked on Arabic, Bangla, Philippines ... etc
[18:13:14] <Haithams> I sometimes help with analytics requests from community, fellows, and grantees.
[18:13:55] <DarTar> thanks Haithams: halfak?
[18:15:38] <halfak> OK. So I've worked primarily with Dario on analyses projects for vetting the quality of Feedback from AFTv5.
[18:16:49] <halfak> My work is at the intersection of what people actually experience in wiki and how we can measure that quantitatively to understand retention of new users and the productivity of new modes of contribution...
[18:17:35] <halfak> Nobly, I led the Rise and Decline study describing *why* newcomer retention has been falling in Wikipedia. I've also been working on tools for turning the decline around. EOM!
[18:17:38] <erosen> hey all, I guess I'll go next
[18:17:42] <erosen> My name is Evan and I'm part of the Learning and Evaluation team within the Grantmaking and Programs department. For the past year, I've been doing work on lots of different projects, inlcluding: geolocated editor trends; Wikipedia Zero progress (as pageviews); self-serve analytics and evaluation tools like limn and the User Metrics API; along with other odds and ends like helping construct control revisions for comparison with revisions comin
[18:17:42] <erosen> from Wikipedia Eduction Program (WEP) students.
[18:17:57] <J-Mo> erosen cheated
[18:18:14] <Pine> J-Mo: erosen is getting an efficiency bonus.
[18:18:22] <DarTar> copy and paste barnstar :p
[18:18:37] <Pine> heh
[18:18:44] <Pine> OK do we have anyone else?
[18:18:49] <DarTar> HenriqueCrang
[18:18:52] <HenriqueCrang> i'll go
[18:19:03] <HenriqueCrang> i am working in the Brazil Catalyst Project for 3 months helping to measure the goals of the program and behavior in pt community.
[18:19:28] <HenriqueCrang> Now I'm working on measuring vandalism, geolocated activities and also the re-boot of WikiProject Medicina, with J-Mo and jonas_agx, whos is a short term contractor of Brazil Catalyst Project.
[18:20:27] <DarTar> alright, so it looks like we're done with intros,
[18:20:41] <Pine> Great, question time. I'll start.
[18:21:11] <Pine> So let's use Echo as an example. When someone says that they need researcher support on a project like that, what does your work involve?
[18:21:14] <TOS> Pick me!
[18:21:22] <Pine> TOS: you can be next :)
[18:21:32] <TOS> Sure.
[18:21:45] <DarTar> ok, so that's one for me
[18:23:16] <DarTar> so Echo is a big piece of infrastructure that has been specced and designed for a few months now
[18:23:34] <DarTar> it's live on MW and it's going to be rolled out as a pilot on enwiki
[18:24:05] <everton137> (Is there a public log of the conversation so far available? - link -)
[18:24:05] <DarTar> analysis on big features like Echo is typically broken down in 3 areas
[18:24:41] <Pine> everton137: I'll PM you
[18:24:49] <DarTar> 1) does the feature work (are we collecting data indicating that the feature is not working as designed)
[18:25:41] <DarTar> 2) does the UX work (are we developing a feature that doesn't make any sense from a user workflow perspective)
[18:26:23] <DarTar> 3) how does the feature impact editor productivity and retention (with a particular focus on newbies)
[18:27:12] <Pine> OK so how do you research the second of those areas? Are you performing user studies?
[18:27:25] <everton137> Question to see if someone can answer later. How does WMF separate its time for researchers to study different languages Wikipedia? My feeling it that there is a bias towards the English Wikipedia. (that would be natural) Is that correct? If so, any plan to change that?
[18:27:48] <DarTar> before answering any of these questions on Echo we usually sit down and discuss metrics and methods and the data that is needed to address them
[18:28:09] <DarTar> UX is tested in two ways
[18:28:29] <DarTar> via real-time usertesting sessions
[18:29:03] <DarTar> (where we give users a task and we try and identify UX/usability barriers)
[18:29:42] <DarTar> and by engaging with the community (mostly via the public editor engagement mailing list) that I guess most of you are familiar with
[18:29:52] <everton137> P. S. question was partially answered by sj__ in person during Wikimedia Conference, but I would like to log it here with researchers present.
[18:30:01] <everton137> my question*
[18:30:35] <TOS> Dartar: Could you explain the public editor mailing list part?
[18:30:56] <TOS> My first question is simple enough, and its for halfak
[18:31:06] <DarTar> everton137: from a product perspective, we totally have an enwiki bias, meaning that in many cases enwiki is the place where new features/pilots are tested first
[18:31:08] <TOS> When will we finally see an operational Snuggle?
[18:31:27] <J-Mo> let's take everton's first.
[18:31:29] <J-Mo>  ?
[18:31:37] <halfak> TOS: Very soon now. :) I've just switched from working on it in a couple hours a week on a bus to working on it full time.
[18:31:38] <Pine> ok thanks DarTar. TOS is next in line for a question and then we can get to Everton's.
[18:31:39] <Pine> TOS, you're up.
[18:31:59] <erosen> In response to everton137's question, I would say that my work is actually pretty uniformly focused on all of hte wikis
[18:32:01] <everton137> DarTar, would be easier to test somethings on smaller wikipedias?
[18:32:04] <TOS> halfak: A definite time please?
[18:32:14] <TOS> Your too soon has been so for 3 months now
[18:32:26] <DarTar> everton137: yes and no
[18:32:43] <erosen> everton137: a lot of my work focuses on providing data sources, which it just makes sense to genereate for each project
[18:32:43] <halfak> TOS: Yes. It turns out that this is my volunteer work, and engineering experimental software takes time.
[18:32:44] <DarTar> in some cases we need to work on the hardest case (for scalability/performance)
[18:33:05] <everton137> DarTar, I cannnot see how the anwer can be both. :)
[18:33:06] <DarTar> where large wikis are an obvious testbed
[18:33:07] <J-Mo> everton137: both Evan and I do a substantial portion of our work on non-en wikis, because Grantmaking & Programs has a more global focus.
[18:33:24] <TOS> Also, a general question for all of you - Why Brazil? Was it because you guys live there, or is there any other reason?
[18:33:25] <everton137> DarTar, I see now
[18:33:34] <Haithams> everton137: I extensively worked with languages other than EnWp most of my time taking the nature of work of the former GolobalDev dep and its focus on the global south.
[18:33:50] <everton137> J-Mo, stands for? (full name)
[18:34:02] <J-Mo> everton137: Jonathan :)
[18:34:04] <HenriqueCrang> here in brazil i've been working with some datasets erosen had prepared and J-Mo is also following up our work closely
[18:34:06] <DarTar> so easy to test something on small wikis when it doesn't have major scalability/performance issues or complex UX or localization issues that we have little capacity at WMF to help with
[18:34:43] <TOS> Also, what do you guys think of expanding in India? We have plenty of vandals as well as good faith editors coming in already, and a little focusing of energies could yield some quality level results
[18:35:09] <halfak> TOS: Honestly, I have heard *nothing* from people as fas as progress on Snuggle. If you bring up concerns on my work log or the associated talk page, that makes it easier for me to justify scheduling time.
[18:36:46] <Pine> halfak: I'm interested in snuggle too. So if the community is interested in a project we should be poking people on talk pages?
[18:36:57] <TOS> halfak I think its more about getting people to use it. You already have plenty of people willing to follow through. But a little bit of effort might be required to ask them to comment [Just a quick bot telling them of the latest work log, and how they can help maybe?]
[18:37:35] <Pine> Yeah, regularly scheduled updates might generate some pageviews and comments.
[18:37:46] <TOS> Guys, I have an unanswered question up there [on India]
[18:38:06] <everton137> HenriqueCrang, you should analyse if snuggle would be good to and talk to halfak if so ;)
[18:38:24] <TOS> More than that, if we keep pinging people to check it out, it will lead some results.
[18:38:43] <Pine> yes I think so too, I doubt many people know about Snuggle
[18:38:49] <Haithams> TOS : so in India, as far as I understand, CIS is currently taking charge of the research/programs work there.
[18:38:51] <everton137> it seems there should be some additional effort ($$ for ppl with time) to localize snuggle
[18:39:02] <TOS> CIS?
[18:39:04] <everton137> *localize and outreach
[18:39:11] <geohacker> TOS:
[18:39:16] <jonas_agx> good point everton137 that's a good thing do look at, mainly after our recent changes
[18:39:28] <HenriqueCrang> everton137, we are already debating it in the context of vandalism
[18:39:32] <jonas_agx> *to
[18:40:02] <halfak> TOS: We should chat more about Snuggle. I don't want to sideline this conversation about analytics, but it is something we definitely should chat more about. Specifically, I could use your help.
[18:40:18] <TOS> I think India and Wikipedia both could benefit immensely if Wikipedia researchers focus on it
[18:40:26] <TOS> halfak Consider it done
[18:40:33] <Ocastro> TOS, we have Brazil Catalyst Program going on and when analysing which type of work was needed here we realized we needed to have data analyses to both track/measure impact of our planned actions as well as to support the Portuguese Community decision making processes (do Henrique's job is part of the Catalyst Program) - that's the context in which he was hired
[18:40:33] <everton137> (there should be a meeting only about snuggle and people study it before hand ;) #suggestion
[18:40:36] <halfak>  :)
[18:40:40] <TOS> Next question -
[18:40:57] <TOS> What do you guys do with all this research
[18:40:59] <jonas_agx> halfak: sure, I'd like to help also
[18:41:04] <TOS> Is it actually implemented?
[18:41:06] <halfak> Yes please
[18:41:12] <Pine> everton137: that sounds like a good office hour topic.
[18:41:20] <TOS> There was the feedback dashboard, which I see nowhere
[18:41:34] <TOS> And then there are overstanding concerns that still remain
[18:41:37] <halfak> A lot of the research we publish on meta (See
[18:41:43] <J-Mo> TOS: we usually have to justify why we're researching something in terms of mission, programs, features, etc.
[18:41:51] <halfak> But we spend a lot of effort doing research to inform design of the new tools.
[18:42:04] <DarTar> TOS: and for E3 experiments in particular
[18:42:15] <halfak> A lot of the research we do is in reaction... making sure that a new feature doesn't break anything.
[18:42:34] <J-Mo> we don't do "basic research" or anything. Although some of us (halfak, me) do academic research on Wikipedia in our other lives as graduate students.
[18:42:42] <DarTar> those pages are the best way to keep up-to-date with the results of various pilots/tests
[18:42:43] <TOS> For example, a majority of the readers in Feedback dashboard showed that many vital articles were too complex for several to understand [I did a quick check on 2 articles]
[18:43:09] <brassratgirl> Hi, this is Phoebe. I have a question as well; is there a wish-list of research topics/problems that is maintained anywhere -- problems that the WMF might not have the time or resources to study, but that are of interest?
[18:43:10] <TOS> My point here is that at the grassroots level, the problem still remains
[18:43:20] <DarTar> hey brassratgirl
[18:43:25] <Haithams> We spend a lot of time on documenting, and sharing the findings with the community on meta/blog ... etc for the purpose of shared learning.
[18:43:44] <StevenW> TOS: BTW FeedbackDashboard is still deployed on Dutch Wikipedia.
[18:43:45] <HenriqueCrang> TOS, we also in brazil do research to provide the community information so they can make data-driven decisions
[18:44:09] <TOS> StevenW and HenriqueCrang - What about enWiki?
[18:44:24] <halfak> brassratgirl: Good question.
[18:44:27] <StevenW> No, not on enwiki at the moment.
[18:44:28] <TOS> Have there been any significant change in the community because of the extensive research done?
[18:44:37] <halfak> I can link to old lists that are not maintained.
[18:44:47] <halfak> I don't think we have a current maintained list of research questions.
[18:44:57] <DarTar> brassratgirl: we have several attempts in that direction
[18:45:11] <halfak> e.g.:
[18:45:21] <StevenW> I would say that work like Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention is a sign of the fact that the community and WMF agree there are problems with editor retention.
[18:45:21] <DarTar> not much success so far unfortunately at centralizing these questions
[18:45:30] <jonas_agx> TOS: there is a "Central of Data" been developed to pt - wiki, where editors will be able to propose studies or even work on one
[18:45:46] <brassratgirl> DarTar: are all the attempts on meta, or ?
[18:45:59] <TOS> With all the researchers here, could anyone please suggest some viable sort of process to actually work on the studies
[18:46:02] <brassratgirl> DarTar: sounds like a good weekend project for someone ;)
[18:46:07] <Pine> DarTar, halfak, brassratgirl: could someone set up a portal on Meta for WMF research, past, present, planned, and wishlisted?
[18:46:19] <DarTar> a couple on Meta, a couple on RCom threads and a couple of in person attempts at past CSCW / WikiSym conferences
[18:46:38] <halfak> Pine. See
[18:46:44] <J-Mo> cscw =
[18:46:58] <Pine> cool thanks for the link
[18:47:11] <halfak> TOS: I'm not sure I understand your question.
[18:47:16] <Pine> It looks a bit dated though
[18:47:17] <brassratgirl> It's a big problem, I know. I just wondered if there was a current list informed by current hands-on work.
[18:47:18] <TOS> If you guys could decide on some basic change in our policy/ implementation that needs to be brought, that sort of proposal shall stand a much more chance of being community approved than a simple Jane Doe proposing a similar thing
[18:47:51] <jonas_agx> J-Mo: will you submit something to cscw?
[18:48:31] <J-Mo> jonas_agx: I'm hoping to, but it will be my academic research on WikiProjects, not my WMF work (at least not this year)
[18:48:56] <TOS> halfak: Your studies have shown that we have an editor retention problem, and to some extent, we have also seen the why. But how can researchers in specific work to remove that problem. Could there be any specific changes that can be brought about (in policy or otherwise) that can lead us to actually solve them?
[18:49:37] <J-Mo> TOS: GettingStarted, Teahouse, and several other initiatives are explicitely focused on new editor retention
[18:49:57] <halfak> TOS: Good question. I'm not convinced that a policy change would be sufficient.
[18:50:07] <halfak> Policy seems to reflect the community more than affect it.
[18:50:22] <TOS> A policy change will be a start
[18:50:24] <halfak> That's why I'm working with software. I think it has a much more transformational effect.
[18:50:30] <halfak> This is a good question though,
[18:50:42] <halfak> It seems that policy is not reflecting the editor retention concern.
[18:51:21] <J-Mo> also, Henrique and I are interested in investigating whether the recent removal of the CAPTCHA on has an effect on new editor retention (although we weren't involved in the removal)
[18:51:41] <TOS> So a quick question in general to all of you, so that we can draw up a good big picture
[18:52:03] <TOS> Which is the most important concern for Wikipedia right now, according to you, and why?
[18:52:30] <TOS> halfak? J-Mo? DarTar? HenriqueCrang?
[18:52:39] <DarTar> so to expand on what halfak said, the reason why *internal* focus has been on usability barriers and UX more than policy changes is that these barriers are those that affect most immediately new contributors
[18:52:41] <J-Mo> losing new users!
[18:52:50] <everton137> "Policy seems to reflect the community more than affect it." I tend to agree. Just compare, for isntance, the bloking policy on (too much bureaucratic and... harsh?) to policy
[18:53:07] <DarTar> and it's really hard to make controlled experiments on policy changes
[18:53:09] <TOS> And whats the most important reason for that in your opinion?
[18:53:09] <J-Mo> so few people who create accounts stick around to become Wikipedians.
[18:53:11] <everton137> background: has a much more hostile environment as compared to
[18:53:21] <jonas_agx> halfak: on software, how do you see the relation between VisualEditor and users retention? Is there something new about it?
[18:53:34] <J-Mo> but many of the users who leave are GF newcomers, and have passion and knowledge to contribute
[18:53:54] <HenriqueCrang> i agree with J-Mo , the rates of news users retention are falling
[18:53:58] <halfak> TOS: What has allowed Wikipedia to be self sustaining (and successful) based on volunteer effort up to this point and what needs to change in order to maintain that future viability?
[18:54:05] <DarTar> TOS: if you cannot figure out markup or you don't manage to complete your first edit, it's premature to discuss about how notability policies affect you as a newbie :)
[18:54:31] <erosen> TOS: to reinterpret your question as one about the wikimedia movement as a whole, I would say that figuring out how to fairly and effectively evaluate grants and FDC recipients is a pretty important, looming question
[18:54:47] <TOS> DarTar : So we need simpler markup/better guidelines/tutorials?
[18:54:50] <DarTar> jonas_agx: we're going to test how VE affects new user participation (and quality) in June
[18:55:13] <J-Mo> agree with erosen: we need to make sure we have the tools to evaluate what's working and what's not, and to shift our priorities accordingly.
[18:55:18] <DarTar> TOS: no markup is better than simple markup for newbies
[18:55:32] <Pine> DarTar: however, we had more editors in the past with no Visual Editor, so why would we expect VE to be important now? Doesn't VE target a different group of people than we've had in the past when we had more active editors?
[18:55:36] <TOS> erosen: What would be the best place to channel that resources? I saw a VP proposal to give away free Wikitablets for developing places
[18:55:37] <halfak> jonas_agx: Good question! That's a complex issue.
[18:55:38] <DarTar> this is the rationale behind Visual Editor
[18:55:43] <Haithams> TSO : For me it is editor growth/retention from geographies where there are a big room and opportunities for growth.
[18:56:01] <TOS> Haithams: Like China?
[18:56:16] <erosen> TOS: I'm not sure i understand the question
[18:56:21] <Haithams> TOS : Yeah, why not.
[18:56:26] <halfak> If good newcomers to Wikipedia are not being successful due to the complexity of markup, the VE has the chance to dramatically boost the rate of good new contributors.
[18:56:30] <erosen> TOS: do you mean what is the right way to be channelin the money, or the research?
[18:56:46] <Pine> By the way we have four minutes left.
[18:56:52] <TOS> I meant money, but research is also fairly important
[18:57:04] <erosen> TOS: well that's essentially the open question
[18:57:26] <TOS> Could this be a good place to do that, erosen?
[18:57:28] <TOS>
[18:57:45] <erosen> TOS: I think having some sort of communally accepted scheme for evaluation is a good start
[18:57:51] <everton137> Haithams, "big room and opportunities for growth" is there some place where we have comparision of such places?
[18:57:52] <DarTar> Pine: two considerations re: fresh blood (1) new editor retention is at its historical lowest and (2) the web has changed a lot and we shouldn't expect new contributors today to be as fluent in markup as they were 10 years ago
[18:57:58] <J-Mo> TOS: if we have good standards for evaluation (of programs, grant-funded projects, etc) we can start to answer that question more scientifically.
[18:58:21] <jonas_agx> DarTar: I look forward to see what will happen when VIsualEditor and Echo get pretty functional, I think the communication editor-to-editor is a important issue to make a better society to Wikis
[18:58:26] <TOS> J-Mo: And how do you propose we set those standards?
[18:59:34] <everton137> TOS, that question (better standards to measure) has not a trivial answer
[18:59:36] <J-Mo> well, the FDC has requested that we propose a set of standards...
[18:59:37] <DarTar> jonas_agx: totally agreed, that by itself should fix something really broken in WP (particularly for newbies)
[19:00:11] <J-Mo> …our job now will be to find standards (and tools) that are useful for different kinds of projects (like the User Metrics API)
[19:00:15] <everton137> I just question during FDC meeting in Wikimedia Conference how to find the best metrics for different Wikimedia projects. Sometimes we can have a measurement of success on which is completly different from, for instance
[19:00:42] <DarTar> TOS: aside from FDC, we're also working on standardizing how we measure activity, quality and retention of contributors
[19:00:43] <Haithams> everton137 : there are many ways to do such a comparison, I am working on some of them based on factors such as # of views, monthly edits, in relation to population, internet penetration etc..
[19:00:54] <everton137> I hope my question on how to find the best metrics was answered last Sunday (I had to leave Milano)
[19:01:07] <TOS> Last question - Has anyone done any research on Sockpuppets? Some early behaviour pattern we can identify to stop them from becoming one in the first place? I personally have seen several users who would have not been socks had they got proper initial guidance in the first place
[19:01:21] <everton137> Haithams, is there a page where you are drafting your ideas on how to do that?
[19:01:33] <Pine> By the way we're getting into overtime :)
[19:01:40] <everton137> I am aware there are many ways to compare things :)
[19:01:49] <Pine> It's great to see the enthusiasm here though
[19:02:10] <jonas_agx> DarTar: Sure, another project with huge potential to improve editors practices is make wiki editable on pad rooms, I think Trevor P is/was working on it.
[19:02:25] <Haithams> everton137 : Not public yet, but will be glad to share it with you as soon as ready.
[19:02:34] <TOS> And finally, when can we see some results from your researches? I take it halfak has promised to get Snuggle up early. What about the rest of them? When do we see, and what do we see?
[19:02:35] <halfak> TOS: That's interesting. Socks are something that we could look at, but it hasn't been a priority. Do you suspect that there's a serious problem to be solved here?
[19:02:41] <everton137> Haithams, please, share with me when public abailable
[19:02:47] <TOS> halfak: Yes
[19:02:47] <DarTar> TOS: the UserMetrics API is one of the first attempts to do this
[19:02:59] <everton137> for me we should start our work publicly
[19:03:26] <Belanidia> everton137 - I agree with you
[19:03:33] <DarTar> TOS: as far as E3 is concerned, we try and publish everything on Meta as soon as the results are available
[19:03:35] * everton137 thinks there is too much work (process) lost on internal wikis�
[19:03:39] <halfak> Every research project I do for the WMF ends up in the meta research index.
[19:03:44] <sumanah> I would love to hear more about User Metrics
[19:03:57] <everton137> and people should be less afraid to work in public (not saying that is the case here ; )
[19:04:00] <DarTar> afaik there's not much happening on private wikis regarding research
[19:04:10] <Pine> sumanah: subject for another office hour? We can also hopefully have one about Snuggle.
[19:04:18] <HenriqueCrang> TOS, the pt vandalism research is scheduled to show some results in May 6th. You can follow the research done on ptwiki following (while the new data portal isnt on)
[19:04:23] <halfak> Agreed Pine
[19:04:48] <Haithams> Agreed. It might take sometime to move the raw data from datasheets into pubic pages.
[19:04:53] <TOS> halfak: We ought to be "very" clear on how much we disapprove of socks. So much so that ought to be a major part of the first pages any new user sees. Or else they end up making a sock as sson as they recieve the first block [many times even sooner]
[19:04:58] <sumanah> DarTar: jonas_agx check out and
[19:05:07] <DarTar> folks, unfortunately I need to go, but feel free to stick around if you can (drop me a line if you want to follow up on editor engagement research plans)
[19:05:15] <Pine> Thanks DarTar!
[19:05:24] <DarTar> thank you
[19:05:28] <J-Mo> and thanks for setting this up Pine. We should do it again soon!
[19:05:38] <TOS> HenriqueCrang: Could you ping me when that result shows up? I would like to look into that
[19:05:49] <Pine> Yes, let's have another round of this maybe in a month if we can.
[19:05:53] <sumanah> !logs
[19:05:53] <everton137> Haithams, does this raw data has private information? I saw some cases where the raw data was only internal (education program). I tried to convince on the importance of the raw data be always public in such cases, unsuccesfully
[19:06:00] <J-Mo> Pine: I'm in
[19:06:01] <jonas_agx> thanks sumanah that project is awesome
[19:06:05] <Pine> sumanah: logs will be posted by Ironholds
[19:06:10] <TOS> Pine: Lets have more time the next time round
[19:06:13] <sumanah>
[19:06:14] <HenriqueCrang> TOS, what is your homewiki and wikiusername? I'll ping you there
[19:06:30] <TOS> Enwiki TheOriginalSoni
[19:06:31] <halfak> Pine, Everton, TOS, jonas_agx & brassratgirl. THANK YOU!
[19:06:42] <TOS>  :)
[19:06:44] <Pine>  :) See you!
[19:06:57] <Pine> I need to go too. This has been great.
[19:07:05] <Pine> Bye everyone.
[19:07:09] <everton137> bye
[19:07:28] <TOS> halfak: I expect some follow up on Snuggle, and for you to have an inquisition on me
[19:07:33] <TOS> Bye pine!
[19:07:36] <halfak> Please feel free to grab me for a more in-depth discussion via
[19:07:41] <Ironholds> logs appear to have been handled, then :)
[19:08:13] <TOS> halfak: are you up for snuggle discussion right now?
[19:08:21] <halfak> Sure thing!
[19:08:25] <jonas_agx> halfak: You're welcome, I'm glad to help and hope to see what's coming with Snuggle :)
[19:08:35] <TOS> Is there anyone else who is up for it?
[19:08:44] <sumanah> jonas_agx: is the person to talk to about real-time collaboration in the Visual Editor
[19:09:03] <halfak> Or rather, would we be stepping on anyone's toes by having another session right now about Snuggle?
[19:09:05] <sumanah> jonas_agx: Sucheta Ghoshal and Mark Holmquist are the people who have been working on EtherEditor
[19:09:14] <TOS> halfak: Do we continue here, or do you want to shift to a different room?
[19:09:18] * marktraceur bows�
[19:09:42] * TOS bows back�
[19:09:59] <marktraceur> TOS: Was in reference to sumanah introducing me, but all right
[19:10:04] <jonas_agx> thanks sumanah: do u know if this guy is going to Amsterdam?
[19:10:05] <HenriqueCrang> thanks everybody for this meeting. TOS , i'll ping you in enwiki with news!
[19:10:13] <halfak> Good Q? I don't IRC often. Norms?
[19:10:26] <TOS> HenriqueCrang: Sure thing
[19:10:26] <sumanah> jonas_agx: Ashish? almost certainly not going to Amsterdam. I highly recommend you email him if you want to talk with him
[19:10:38] <TOS> marktraceur: NP. You bowed, I bowed
[19:10:50] <marktraceur> jonas_agx: I'll be there anyway, if you want to chatter about collaborative editing
[19:10:54] * halfak bows too�
[19:11:00] <jonas_agx> sumanah: okay
[19:11:26] <TOS> halfak: No idea. J-Mo, could you help on this front?
[19:11:44] <jonas_agx> marktraceur: super cool, I hope meet you there, I'd like to discuss on real-time editing
[19:12:07] <TOS> join #wikipedia-en-snuggle
[19:12:09] <J-Mo> TOS: help with what? Didn't see the question
[19:12:34] <TOS> Should we continue snuggle discussion here or go to another room?
[19:13:02] <J-Mo> I won't be able to talk Snuggle today, but I bet halfak can.
[19:13:13] <jonas_agx> marktraceur: how can talk to you later?
[19:13:23] <sumanah> jonas_agx: #mediawiki is good
[19:13:24] <halfak> Hokay. We'll be in #wikimedia-en-snuggle if anyone wants to join us.
[19:13:30] <halfak> ack
[19:13:37] <halfak> #wikipedia-en-snuggle
[19:13:39] <halfak> ^^
[19:13:46] <jonas_agx> ok sumanah
[19:14:05] <marktraceur> jonas_agx: I'm also in here
[19:14:10] <marktraceur> Wherever you'd like, really
[19:14:20] <TOS> everton137 are you coming?
[19:14:44] <everton137> TOS, where? (In a meetup now, I stoped reading here)
[19:14:53] <TOS> #wikipedia-en-snuggle
[19:14:58] <TOS> To discuss snuggle
[19:15:20] <jonas_agx> perfect, marktraceur
[19:15:38] <TOS> jonas_agx: Would you be interested in discussing snuggle?
[19:16:01] <TOS> HenriqueCrang: Are you in?
[19:16:14] <HenriqueCrang> already there ;)
[19:16:32] <jonas_agx> TOS: sure, when do you plan?
[19:16:37] <TOS> now
[19:16:57] <jonas_agx> okay, so the question is: where?
[19:17:01] <TOS> #wikipedia-en-snuggle
[19:17:14] <TOS> HenriqueCrang: Come to #wikipedia-en-snuggle
[19:17:15] <jonas_agx> Okya, let me join
[19:18:06] <HenriqueCrang> ow, I was in #wikimedia-en-snuggle
[19:18:07] <everton137> HenriqueCrang, jonas_agx use the opportunity to talk about snnugle with halfak
[19:19:18] <jonas_agx> okay everton137