Feel free to edit this summary!
The first meeting of the Research Team on Sunday, June 6 focused on defining its mission and planning some of the tasks to come. 25 people attended and participated. Essentially, we agreed that the Team would be a network of special interest groups focused on particular issues such as:
- Wikimedia sociology
- MediaWiki development tasks
- Content analysis
Members of the Team are also encouraged to keep abreast of activities outside their own work, and to participate in high priority projects.
Some general work that has been started:
- http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_projects has been created to collect ideas for worthwhile projects. Two specific ideas, a user survey and a distributed quality comparison of Wikipedia with other encyclopedias, have been proposed.
- http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research_Team/Interests lists members of the team by interests; if you are a member and you haven't checked your interests here yet, please do so.
The following have been suggested as high priority tasks:
- Reorganize and update http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Development_tasks -- it has not yet been finalized to what extent we will use Bugzilla, but we will try not to add information to it that would increase the workload of the developers.
- Organize community meetings (Wikibooks, Wikinews, Wikisource etc.) to better determine what every community's specific needs are.
- Improve communications within the Team (possibly make use of wikiresearch-l, or a new mailing list specifically for logistics).
- Specifically, work on the GUI and workflows for single login migration to assist Brion with the implementation.
Besides these issues, many specific features and ideas were discussed during and after the meeting.
The next meeting will likely happen on June 18 or June 19; the specific date is being decided on: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research_Team#Next_meeting
Eloquence will try to organize the next meeting specifically so that smaller groups can work on separate issues. I also want to bring peer review and article validation into the debate at that point.
The following said at least something during the meeting: