*Hi Dario,
Wikimédia france animates several programs with young researchers mainly
with l'association Plume! and l'Atelier-projet « Wikipédia et
MediaWiki »<http://fr.wikiversity.org/wiki/Atelier-projet_%C2%AB_Wikip%C3%A9dia_et_Medi…>,
in wich doctoral student create and work together on articles related to
their field ol expertise
May I ask to whom and how boardly you want us to relay you survey ?
French version with more detail below*
Salut Dario
Le 9 février 2011 15:35, Jean-Frédéric Berthelot <
jean-frederic.berthelot(a)wikimedia.fr> a écrit :
> We hope this may help us identify ways around barriers to expert
> participation. The survey is anonymous and takes about 20 min to complete.
> Please help us circulate the link among your students and collaborators:
>
> http://bit.ly/ExpertBarriers
>
salut Dario,
on a à wikimédia France divers programmes de coopération avec de jeunes
chercheur, notamment avec l'association Plume! et aussi *l'Atelier*-projet «
Wikipédia et *MediaWiki*
»<http://fr.wikiversity.org/wiki/Atelier-projet_%C2%AB_Wikip%C3%A9dia_et_Medi…>
.
on peut donc relayer ton questionnaire, mais comment ? avant ou après qu'ils
aient suivi le programme ? juste faire suivre à un maximum de personnes ?
On peut aussi s'abstenir de cibler une population et diffuser le plus
possible, par exemple sur le réseau linkedin des jeunes chercheurs, voire
carrément spammer des mailing de congrès et des écoles doctorales (attention
alors ?).
amicalement
Wikipedia is increasingly used by university students for "pre-research", to gain context and explore ideas for course assignments and research projects [1]. Yet many among scientists, academics and experts are reluctant to contribute to Wikipedia, despite a growing number of calls from the scientific community to join the project [2-3].
The Wikimedia Research Committee [4] has just launched a survey to understand why scientists, academics and other experts do (or do not) contribute to Wikipedia, and whether individual motivation aligns with shared perceptions of Wikipedia within expert communities. We hope this may help us identify ways around barriers to expert participation. The survey is anonymous and takes about 20 min to complete. Please help us circulate the link among your students and collaborators:
http://bit.ly/ExpertBarriers
Dario Taraborelli
Panagiota Alevizou
Daniel Mietchen
[1] http://chronicle.com/article/article-content/125899/
[2] http://www.jmir.org/2011/1/e14/
[3] http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/members/aps-wikipedia-initiat…
[4] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_Committee
(FYI, may be of interest to researchers as well)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Luca de Alfaro <luca(a)dealfaro.com>
Date: 2011/2/3
Subject: [Toolserver-l] APIs giving origin and author of text ("blame"
maps), and signals on revision vandalism
To: toolserver-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Dear All,
We wanted to let you know of three recent APIs we have built for
WikiTrust that may be useful to tool developers. If anyone would like
to build a service on top of these APIs (or have suggestions for other
APIs that we might be able to provide with our data), we would love to
work with you to make it happen.
kind regards,
Luca, Bo, and Ian
VANDALISM API: A request like
http://en.collaborativetrust.com/WikiTrust/RemoteAPI?method=quality&revid=4…
returns the vandalism probability for revision 1234. This is a plain
text floating point number from zero to one, where 1.0 means that the
revision is vandalism.
SELECTION API: A request like
http://en.collaborativetrust.com/WikiTrust/RemoteAPI?method=select&pageid=2…
returns a JSON array of objects describing the top-quality recent
revisions of the page. Each entry consist of a revision_id, and of a
few additional parameters.
TEXT ORIGIN API: A request like
http://en.collaborativetrust.com/WikiTrust/RemoteAPI?method=wikimarkup&page…
returns a JSON object containing a string, consisting of the WikiTrust
text with some additional markup. The markup consists in tags like:
Since {{#t:10,84893431,Habitual gardner}}its inception in
{{#t:10,86765634,Bassemkhalifa}}1928 the movement
which means that the words “its inception in” were written by
“Habitual gardner”, in revision 86765634 (and have trust 10).
---
See http://www.wikitrust.net/vandalism-api for additional information
about these APIs.
_______________________________________________
Toolserver-l mailing list (Toolserver-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org)
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
Posting guidelines for this list:
https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
1st International Workshop on Semantic Publication (SePublica 2011)
http://sepublica.mywikipaper.org
at the 8th Extended Semantic Web Conference (ESWC 2011)
http://www.eswc2011.org
May 29th or 30th, Hersonissos, Crete, Greece
Keynote by Steve Pettifer, Manchester University, UK.
“Utopia Documents and The Semantic Biochemical Journal experiment”
SUBMISSION DEADLINE February 28
ELSEVIER BEST SEMANTIC PAPER AWARD
The Best Paper Award is presented to the author(s) deemed to have
written the paper covering the most innovative and feasible proposal
concerning semantic publishing in the workshop. All submissions to the
SePublica workshop will be considered, and a panel of experts will
rate the papers according to originality of the idea, feasibility and
presentation. The Best Paper award is sponsored by Elsevier as an
incentive for researchers working on defining the next generation of
scientific publishing concepts. The Best Paper Award will be handed
out at the end of the SePublica workshop.
• As a cash prize, the Best Paper Award will receive: US$ 750
• The runner-up will be awarded a prize of US$ 250.
The MISSION of the SePublica workshop is to bring together researchers
and practitioners dealing with different aspects of Semantic
Technologies in the Publishing Industry. How is the Semantic Web
impacting the publishing industry? How is our experience of
publications changing because of Semantic Web technologies being
applied to the publishing industry?
The CHALLENGE of the Semantic Web is to allow the Web to move from a
dissemination platform to an interactive platform for networked
information. The Semantic Web promises to “fundamentally change our
experience of the Web”.
In spite of improvements in the distribution, accessibility and
retrieval of information, little has changed in the publishing
industry so far. The Web has succeeded as a dissemination platform for
scientific and non-scientific papers, news, and communication in
general; however, most of that information remains locked up in
discrete documents, which are poorly interconnected to one another and
to the Web.
The connectivity tissues provided by RDF technology and the Social Web
have barely made an impact on scientific communication nor on ebook
publishing, neither on the format of publications, nor on repositories
and digital libraries. The worst problem is in accessing and reusing
the computable data which the literature represents and describes.
• Consider research publications: Data sets and code are essential
elements of data intensive research, but these are absent when the
research is recorded and preserved in perpetuity by way of a scholarly
journal article.
• Or consider news reports: Governments increasingly make public
sector information available on the Web, and reporters use it, but
news reports very rarely contain fine-grained links to such data
sources.
QUESTIONS AND TOPICS OF INTEREST
• What does a network of truly interconnected papers look like?
How could interoperability across documents be enabled?
• How could concept-centric social networks emerge?
• Are blogs and wikis new means for scholarly communication?
• What lessons can be learned from humanities and social science publishers
(i.e. going beyond scientific publishing towards scholarly publishing)?
• How could we move beyond the PDF?
How can we embed and link semantics in EPUB and other e-book formats?
• How are digital libraries related to semantic e-science?
What is the relationship between a paper and its digital library?
• How could we realize a paper with an API?
How could we have a paper as a database, as a knowledge base?
• How is the paper an interface, gateway, to the web of data?
How could such and interface be delivered in a contextual manner?
• How could RDF(a) and ontologies be used to represent the knowledge encoded
in scientific documents and in general-interest media publications?
• What ontologies do we need for representing structural elements in a document?
• How can we capture the semantics of rhetorical structures in
scholarly communication, and of hypotheses and scientific evidence?
AUDIENCE
• researchers from diverse backgrounds such as argumentative
structures, scholarly communication, multi-modality in publications,
digital libraries, semantics in publications, and ontology
engineers.
• practitioners active in the publishing industry, repositories of
experimental information and document standards.
IMPORTANT DATES
Paper/Demo Submission Deadline: February 28, 23:59 Hawaii Time
Acceptance Notification: April 1
Camera Ready Version: April 15
SePublica Workshop: May 29 or May 30 (to be announced)
SUBMISSION AND PROCEEDINGS
Research papers are limited to 12 pages and position papers to 5
pages. For system descriptions, a 5 page paper should be
submitted. All papers and system descriptions should be formatted
according to the LNCS format
http://www.springer.com/computer/lncs?SGWID=0-164-6-793341-0
We encourage the submission of semantic documents. LaTeX documents in
the LNCS format can, e.g., be annotated using SALT
(http://salt.semanticauthoring.org) or sTeX
(http://trac.kwarc.info/sTeX/). We also invite submissions in
XHTML+RDFa or in the format or YOUR semantic publishing tool.
However, to ensure a fair review procedure, authors must additionally
export them to PDF. For submissions that are not in the LNCS PDF
format, 400 words count as one page. Submissions that exceed the page
limit will be rejected without review.
Depending on the number and quality of submissions, authors might
be invited to present their papers during a poster session.
Please submit your paper via EasyChair at
http://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=sepublica2011
The author list does not need to be anonymized, as we do not have a
double-blind review process in place.
Submissions will be peer reviewed by three independent
reviewers. Accepted papers have to be presented at the workshop
(requires registering for the ESWC conference and the workshop) and
will be included in the workshop proceedings that are published online
at CEUR-WS.
PROGRAM COMMITTEE
• Christopher Baker, University of New Brunswick, Saint John, Canada
• Paolo Ciccarese, Harvard Medical School, USA
• Tim Clark, Harvard Medical School, USA
• Oscar Corcho, Politecnica de Madrid, Spain
• Stéphane Corlosquet, Massachusetts General Hospital, USA
• Joe Corneli, Open University, UK
• Michael Dreusicke, PAUX Technologies, Germany
• Henrik Eriksson, Linköping University, Sweden
• Benjamin Good, Genomic Institute, Novartis, USA
• Tudor Groza, University of Queensland, Australia
• Michael Kohlhase, Jacobs University, Germany
• Sebastian Kruk, knowledgehives.com, Poland
• Thomas Kurz, Salzburg Research, Austria
• Steve Pettifer, Manchester University, UK
• Matthias Samwald, Information Retrieval Facility, Austria
• Jodi Schneider, DERI, NUI Galway, Ireland
• Dagobert Soergel, University of Maryland, USA
• Robert Stevens, Manchester University, UK
ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
• Alexander García Castro, University of Bremen, Germany
• Christoph Lange, Jacobs University Bremen, Germany
• Anita de Waard, Elsevier, USA/Netherlands
• Evan Sandhaus, New York Times, USA
QUESTIONS? → sepublica(a)googlegroups.com
--
Christoph Lange, Jacobs Univ. Bremen, http://kwarc.info/clange, Skype duke4701