Jeez, another committee I'll have to sign up for. I wonder, maybe a famous London statistician will also get involved.

Erik Moeller erik at wikimedia.org
Tue Aug 3 01:39:44 UTC 2010

Hello all,

The Wikimedia Foundation is looking for volunteers who would like to
support the management of relationships between Wikimedia communities
and the broader communities of researchers who study Wikimedia
projects. We hope to create a committee with volunteers from both
groups with a rich combination of skills and backgrounds.

Here are some areas of work that this new Wikimedia Research
Committee, with help from the Wikimedia Foundation staff, is intended
to explore:

Jeez, another committee I'll have to sign up for. I wonder, maybe a famous London statistician will also get involved.

Yet Another Logo And Motto Exhibition (WP:YALAME)

Howsabout —

• Wikipediot Resuck Committee : The Best Phony Research (PR) Your Money Can Buy

Watcha wanna bet the Credulous Point Of View (CPOV) folks already know about this?

Something for you “Follar the Dollar” gumpshoes to look into …

Time will tell whether they Leipzigged when they shoulda Leapzagged …

Jon

Erik,

Will critics of less-than-best-practices within the Wikimedia Foundation be considered for invitation to the Wikimedia Research Committee, or is there some sort of loyalty "litmus test" going to be applied?

I've sent my self-nomination by private e-mail anyway, but I thought a public clarification of this question would be a helpful learning.

Thanks,

Greg

--
Gregory Kohs

It may be appropriate here to copy a would-be post of mine to the Foundation-l mailing list, which is currently on hold for "moderation".

Gerard M. says:

Dear Greg,
This is not about criticism but about research. With respect I have not seen
your research papers, I am not aware of your credentials that would make you
a choice to be considered for being part of a research committee.

Given that the work of the committee includes work on policies that have to
do with access to confidential data, it seems to me only natural that your
status as being banned from several Wikis is an other reason why you are
easily disqualified from participating in a research committee.

At that you have had your "test" several times and as a result you are a
known entity.
Thanks,
GerardM

++++++++++++++++++++

Allow me to make you aware of my credentials, Gerard, since you asked "with respect".

I'm the Director of Market Research for a company valued at $52 billion. I've been making a living with market research for 18 years now.

One of my co-authored research papers was published in a scientific journal supplement:
http://www.ajronline.org/cgi/data/183/3/DC1/1

I've written a white paper about research for public relations:
http://www.icrsurvey.com/docs/MR%20for%20PR.doc

For the more casual reader, I've maintained an occasional blog on research since 2005:
http://insidemr.blogspot.com/

And, I've conducted numerous informal but systematic research studies about Wikimedia properties:
http://www.wikipediareview.com/Wikipedia_Vandalism_Study
http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/watcher/ (You'll have to ask around about that one.)
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Survey_about_Wikipedia (Currently, a bit slow-going on the analysis, due to editing parameters imposed on the Wikiversity community by Jimmy Wales)

I am curious about this "access to confidential data" of which you speak. This presupposes that other members of the vast Wikimedia community do currently have access to this confidential data. Have they been vetted in some way that you can be assured that they won't do something with that data more monstrous than what I would ever do with such data? I'm trusted with confidential customer account data by a $52 billion company. Respectfully, how about you?


******************
Meanwhile, D. Gerard says:

Trolling blogs probably isn't the best resume item, no. HTH!

******************

Playing dress-up probably is an "interesting" resume item, no?

http://tinyurl.com/david-gerard-wikipedia

Hope that helps!

Greg

--
Gregory Kohs
Cell: 302.463.1354

******************
Meanwhile, D. Gerard says:

Trolling blogs probably isn't the best resume item, no. HTH!

******************

Playing dress-up probably is an "interesting" resume item, no?

http://tinyurl.com/david-gerard-wikipedia

Hope that helps!

Greg

I thought that the folks around here would enjoy seeing a group of identifiable people, including experts, participating in "steering" roles on Wikipedia.

I wonder what Sanger thinks about this.

Seems to me that if they were serious, they'd accept a wide range of "experts".
But they're not serious. They only want "experts" who are willing to suck the
teeny-tiny knobs of Jimbo and Friends, and salute the Wiki-Flag each day.

* developing policy around researcher permissions for non-public data
* supporting the development of subject recruitment processes
* reviewing research projects when conflicts-of-interest arise
* articulating and channeling requests for data and technical resources
* helping to formulate the key strategic research objectives of the
Wikimedia movement (see strategy.wikimedia.org)
* helping to formulate small tactical experiments related to
Wikimedia's strategic goals
* developing an open access policy as a requirement for significant
support from the Wikimedia Foundation
* helping create a "starter kit" for researchers to avoid duplication of effort

I think it's entirely reasonable of them to limit such a committee to people who want Wikipedia to succeed. If you want to make lulzy analogies about "saluting the Wiki-Flag each day", that's your prerogative, but it doesn't negate the fact that the folks making the decisions do not trust Gregory Kohs to act in their best interest.

Subtle but important error there. Most folk who know Greg do know he'd act in what he believes to be Wikipedia's best interest; he's a pretty enthusiastic banger of the open-editing drum. The issue is that Jimbo and co aren't willing to accept anyone whose vision of where Wikipedia ought to go differs in any way from their own party line.

Subtle but important error there. "Most folk who know Greg" ≠ "the folks making the decisions".

Subtle but important error there. "Most folk who know Greg" ≠ "the folks making the decisions". And as a result of the way he goes about his criticisms, the folks making the decisions aren't so interested in getting to know Greg.

Bullshit. I can guarantee that everyone at the WMF is well aware of Greg (who remains, AFAIK, the only person ever to have wrung an apology from Jimmy Wales for his treatment at the hands of the Wikipedia goon-squad).

Subtle but important error there. "Most folk who know shit" ≠ "the folks making the decisions". And as a result of the way they go about avoiding criticism, the folks making the decisions aren't so interested in getting to know shit.

There are a number of ways I could answer this. Choose one:

1. "Wait, did you just compare Greg to shit? "
2. "I can totally understand! I don't want to grok fecal matter myself. I prefer to flush it. "
3. Hey, let's play some Mad Libs!

2. Kinda ironic, given your username...

Why is that ironic? The only part of my username that might be relevant to shit is the "rat" part, and for that I might as well be calling you a naval man, "Sub".

Either way, this is getting off topic. I'm not going to argue your point, because I don't care about whether this incident can be used to call them stupid or ignorant, or not. I think that it's reasonable to exclude people from your committees that don't have your best interests at heart, and it's clear that those who chose the members of this committee think that Greg does not have their best interests at heart. That's the entirety of the point I wanted to make. Whether their decision is misguided I leave as an exercise to the reader, regardless of whether they think that he's the Lucifer of the Wiki World or the light-bearer on all WikiMistakes.

"BREAKING NEWS: Seurat does not give a shit either way." Whoops, there's that shit popping up again.

My misunderstanding then, I'd assumed your name was a novel spelling of "sewer rat", but of course it could be many things, including a proper last name, ...

Or maybe even the proper surname, say, of some French post-impressionist painter.

What is the name of the affective emotional state signaled by the expression in his eyes?

I dunno - what'd Neitsche call it before he went mad?

The syphilabyss.

I think he had only two neurons at the end, and they were only connected by a spirochete.

Agnew Spirochete.
Spirochete was not a friend o' mine!
But did he not make a very fine whine?

Jon

Uh-Oh, Yet Another Violation Of WR:POINTILLISM !!!

Here's my response, which won't likely get published...

Your request to the foundation-l mailing list

Posting of your message titled "Re: Call for Volunteers: Wikimedia
Research Committee"

has been rejected by the list moderator. The moderator gave the
following reason for rejecting your request:

"Greg,

Obviously you're trolling here, particularly with your response to
David's comment. ("Playing dress-up probably is an 'interesting'
resume item, no?") And quite honestly, your last post was
borderline-trolling, but I let it slide because I'd rather err on the
side of letting you have your say.

If you tried to tone it down a little, I think you'd find much more
support within the Wikimedia community - you occasionally do have
valid points, but they're obscured by your vitriolic tone. At the
very least, if you stopped posting obviously inflammatory comments, I
would rarely have to reject your posts.

-Ral315"

Any questions or comments should be directed to the list administrator
at:

foundation-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org

Obviously you're trolling here, particularly with your response to David's comment. ("Playing dress-up probably is an 'interesting' resume item, no?")

Well, to be fair, Dave Gerard is awfully sensitive about the dozens of high-resolution drag-queen photos of himself that he's uploaded to his various personal websites over the years, not to mention the fact that he includes glossy 8x10 copies with his professional resumé.

The initial membership of the research committee has been named. Included among the academics and scholars is an expert on the subject of children and sex and the cartoon character WereSpielChequers.

Some of the people on the Committee look like they're appropriate for such a group, if a bit self-involved in the Wikimedia culture. Personally, I'm surprised that Erik found more than three others to help him with his ego. I wish them luck working with the Squirrelin' Merlin from Berlin.