Hi everyone,
We sent a separate e-mail introducing our systematic literature review on Wikipedia-related peer-reviewed academic studies published in English. As we mentioned, we have identified over 2,100 peer-reviewed studies. This number of studies is far too large for conducting a review synthesis, and so we have decided to focus only on peer-reviewed journal publications and doctoral theses; we identified 638 such studies.
That leaves us with around 1,500 peer-reviewed conference articles, which we gathered from the ACM Digital Library (http://portal.acm.org) and IEEE Engineering Village (http://www.engineeringvillage.com). We have posted the full list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Moudy83/conference_papers. Unfortunately, the only criteria we have applied on selecting these articles is that "Wikipedia", "wikipedian" or "wikipedians" appears in the title, abstract or keywords. Thus, there are very likely some papers there that are only marginally related to Wikipedia. For the journal articles and doctoral theses we discuss in the other thread, we have verified each one to make sure that they are really substantially about Wikipedia; however, we haven't done this for these conference articles. We estimate that 5 to 20% of the articles may not actually be relevant.
Our question here is, what do we do with these conference articles? There is already a list of conference papers at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_studies_of_Wikipedia#Confer… (WP:ACST), which currently lists around 230 conference articles. Here are some thoughts of what we could do:
* Merge the two lists. This would take too much time and effort, and since we're not going to actually review the conference articles, for us it's just not worth it. Of course, if someone else would like to do that, that would be great. The problem is that it's not a bit-by-bit job; since it involves merging tables, it seems to be an all-or-nothing operation.
* Add our list to the end of the WP:ACST list. This would leave lots of duplicates (probably between 100 and 200).
* Replace the WP:ACST list with our more complete list. This would lose the extra information in many of the current WP:ACST article listings.
Another significant problem is that adding these 1,500 conference articles would greatly lengthen an already extremely long page. Should the WP:ACST be subdivided into multiple pages?
What do think? We're really not sure the best way to put this useful information out, while retaining the value of what's already there.
Thanks for your help.
Chitu Okoli, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada
(http://chitu.okoli.org/professional/open-content/wikipedia-and-open-content…)
Arto Lanamäki, University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway
Mohamad Mehdi, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada
Mostafa Mesgari, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada
Hi Reid,
This is a fabulous idea. In fact, it is in this line that we put out all our results so far on the WP:ACST page, though we never thought of something so ambitious. Here are my responses to your five steps:
1. Create a public Mediawiki instance: I take it that your group is handling this? I have a server I could contribute, but we probably wouldn't be able to handle the server admin.
2. Decide on a relatively standardized format of reviewing each paper (metadata formats, an infobox, how to write reviews of each, etc.): In our initial thread deciding this project, we listed a bunch of research questions; this could be used as a draft of some key aspects of papers that researchers would like to know.
3. Upload your existing Zotero database into this new wiki (I would be happy to write a script to do this): We'll be glad to share our Zotero database as you suggested. We could export it as Zotero RDF XML (which would save almost all the data, though we have a huge bank of PDFs as well), or as any format into which Zotero exports.
4. Proceed with paper readings, with the goal that every single paper is looked at by human eyes: Comments on this below. However, we hope that the results of our literature review could give a major boost to this project.
5. Use this content to produce one or more review articles: Comments on this below
The stickiest part of this project, though, has to do with authorship issues. In fact, so sticky and so important that I'll continue it on another thread. However, I am very interested in such a collaboration. And I fully agree with you that it is sufficiently important to all of us that it needs to go forward in some form, even if all authorship issues are not yet resolved.
And yes, I'm subscribed to the list, as are Arto, Mohamad and Mostafa. I've been a silent lurker for a couple years now :-). So, no need to CC me separately.
Thanks,
Chitu
-------- Message original --------
Sujet: Proposal: build a wiki literature review wiki-style (was: Re: Wikipedia literature review - include or exclude conference articles)
De : Reid Priedhorsky <reid(a)reidster.net>
Pour : Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Copie à : Chitu Okoli <Chitu.Okoli(a)concordia.ca>
Date : March-16-11 12:20:47 PM
> Chitu and others,
>
> I too see great need for a comprehensive survey paper in this field. My own personal interest is in one that covers wiki research in general, not just research of Wikipedia; this of course makes the intractable number of papers even more intractable.
>
> In fact, I am involved with a team of researchers with the same goal as you, though we are just getting started.
>
> It seems to me that you are in a very difficult position. As others have noted, the scoping filter you propose is not a good one, but the number of papers is simply intractable without a very aggressive filter that excludes 2/3 or more of the known papers. (To further complicate the issue, I am skeptical of machine filtering period, fearing that any useful filter would necessarily be complex and difficult to justify in a writeup.)
>
> However, I believe that there is a solution, and that is to dramatically increase the team size by doing the analysis wiki style. Rather than a small team creating the review, do it in public with an open set of contributors. Specifically, I propose:
>
> 1. Create a public Mediawiki instance.
> 2. Decide on a relatively standardized format of reviewing each paper (metadata formats, an infobox, how to write reviews of each, etc.)
> 3. Upload your existing Zotero database into this new wiki (I would be happy to write a script to do this).
> 4. Proceed with paper readings, with the goal that every single paper is looked at by human eyes.
> 5. Use this content to produce one or more review articles.
>
> The goals of the effort would be threefold.
>
> * Create an annotated bibliography of wiki research that is easy to keep up to date.
> * Identify the N most important papers for more focused study and synthesis (perhaps leading towards more than one survey article).
> * Provide metadata on the complete set of papers so that it can be described statistically.
>
> Simply put, I believe that we as modern researchers need to be able to build survey articles which analyze 2,000-5,000 or more papers, and maybe this is a way to do that.
>
> I and the other members of my team have already planned significant time towards this effort and would be very excited to join forces to lead such a mass collaboration.
>
> Why use Mediawiki rather than Zotero or some other bibliography manager? First, it would be easy for anyone to participate because there is no software to install, no database to import, etc. Second, I personally have found Zotero, CiteULike, and every other bibliography manager I've tried to be clunky and tedious to use and not flexible enough for my needs (for example, three-state tags that let us say a paper has, does not have, or we do not know if it has, a certain property could be useful). We can always export the data into whatever bibliography software is preferred by particular authors.
>
> Authorship is of course an issue, and one that should be worked out before people start contributing IMO, but not an intractable one, and there is precedent for scientific papers to have hundreds of authors (and it would certainly be in the wiki spirit). I myself would love to have a prominent place in the author list, but having the survey article written at all is a much higher priority.
>
> Finally, one of my dreams has been to create a more or less complete database of *all* scientific publications, with reviews, a citation graph, private notes, and a robust data model (e.g., one that can tell two John Smiths apart and know when J. Smith is the same as John Smith). Maybe this is the first step along that path. (I did work a bit on data models for citation databases a bit about five years go and still use the software I created - Yabman, http://yabman.sf.net/.)
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Reid
>
> p.s. Chitu, do you subscribe to this list? If so, we'll stop CC'ing you; if not, I encourage you to do so - it's pretty low traffic and certainly relevant to your work.
Hi all,
Does anyone know how to retrieve a specified user's contribution history
(within a date range) using an api query? Any advice would be much
appreciated - direct email would be fine to reduce chatter on the list.
Best regards,
Michael Restivo
--
Michael Restivo
Department of Sociology
Social and Behavioral Sciences S-433
Stony Brook University
Stony Brook, NY 11794
mike.restivo(a)gmail.com
Wow, Joseph, we totally missed that. This is exactly the kind of thing we're looking for, a current bank of research questions. We hope our lit review will add a lot of new knowledge points (that is, identify lots of knowledge points that have some answers)!
Thanks,
Chitu
-------- Message original --------
Sujet: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Request for feedback on research questions for Wikipedia literature review
De : Joseph Reagle <joseph.2008(a)reagle.org>
Pour : Chitu Okoli <Chitu.Okoli(a)concordia.ca>
Date : March-15-11 3:24:19 PM
> On Tuesday, March 15, 2011, Chitu Okoli wrote:
>> Do you have any links you could give us that lists ongoing projects, from which we could draw the research questions?
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-pedia
Hi everyone,
We sent a separate e-mail introducing our systematic literature review on Wikipedia-related peer-reviewed academic studies published in English.
We hope that our review would provide useful insights for the research community. Thus, we would like to ask your help in reviewing the research questions we have developed for the data extraction and synthesis phases of our review. Currently, we address the following review research questions:
1. What high-quality research has been conducted with Wikipedia as a major topic or data source? As mentioned in the introductory e-mail, we have already identified over 2,100 studies, though we will only analyze the journal articles and doctoral theses in detail. We will group the articles by field of study.
2. What research questions have been asked by various sources, both academic scholarly and practitioner? We want to know both the subjects that the existing research has covered, and also catalogue key questions that practitioners would like to be answered, whether or not academic research has broached these questions. Also, we categorize the research questions based on their purposes. We have more comments on this research question below.
3. What theoretical frameworks and reference theories have been used to study the topic? We are very interested in theory-driven research on Wikipedia, and would like to identify and categorize such work.
4. What research designs have been employed to answer research questions? By "research design", we include all that is commonly called research "methodologies" or "approaches".
5. What kinds of data have been collected for research purposes? Specifically, we note the data collection techniques, the time dimension (one-time snapshot or longitudinal observations over time), the unit of analysis, the technique used for extracting Wikipedia data (e.g. live Wikipedia or Wikipedia clone server), the Wikipedia page type, and the Wikipedia language.
6. What conclusions have been made from existing research? That is, what questions from RQ2 have been answered, and what are these answers?
7. What questions from RQ2 are left unanswered? (These present directions for future research.)
Do you have any comments or feedback on these questions? On one hand, we want to extract useful data from the studies that could be helpful to researchers. On the other hand, we have to be pragmatic, considering what we can cover when we're dealing with over 600 peer-reviewed studies.
Beyond these basic questions, we have a special note regarding our RQ2, on the research questions that have been asked. In addition to the research questions that we extract from the articles, we want to know what questions are of interest that have not been studied. For this, we have identified a few banks of Wikipedia-related research questions. Of note to academics and researchers is the collection at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikidemia#Research_Quest…. Could you please review this list and update that page directly with any additional questions? Alternately, you could reply us directly, and we could update the list.
In addition, we are even more interested in questions that practitioners are asking, other than what researchers are asking. (Although we know that most Wikipedia researchers are also Wikipedia "practitioners", we define practitioner here as someone involved in the Wikipedia project who is not also a scholarly researcher.) Thus, we are sending a separate e-mail to wikipedia-l, foundation-l, and wikiEN-l asking them to update the list of Foundation research questions at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Research_Goals.
Thanks for your help.
Chitu Okoli, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada
(http://chitu.okoli.org/professional/open-content/wikipedia-and-open-content…)
Arto Lanamäki, University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway
Mohamad Mehdi, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada
Mostafa Mesgari, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada
Wikimedia Foundation has encouraged the Open Web Analytics project to
apply as a mentoring organization for Google Summer of Code. [Quick
explanation of GSoC: http://en.flossmanuals.net/GSoCMentoring/Introduction ]
If OWA is accepted as a GSoC project, college and graduate students can
apply for a paid summer internship developing OWA. In preparation,
Peter Adams has listed some possible summer projects here:
http://wiki.openwebanalytics.com/index.php?title=GSoC_2011
Please feel free to add your feature requests to that page.
I encourage university and graduate students around the world to
consider applying for the MediaWiki or Open Web Analytics GSoC
projects. A short guide to applying:
http://www.booki.cc/gsocstudentguide/_v/1.0/why-should-i-apply/
and the MediaWiki project ideas page:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Summer_of_Code_2011
Thanks,
Sumana Harihareswara
interim Wikimedia volunteer/community development coordinator
Hi all!
Wikimedia Germany invites anyone interested in improving MediaWiki to come and
join us at or third developer meet-up. Like the last two years, it's going to be
awesome! Unlike the last two years, there will be more hacking and less talking
- it'll be a Hackathon, not a BarCamp.
We'll meet on May 13 to 15, in Berlin, on the 4th floor of the betahaus
coworking space <http://betahaus.de/>.
There will not be an entrance fee, but registration is mandatory and now open:
<http://de.amiando.com/hackathon2011>.
Registration will close on April 10. If you like to attend, please register in
time!
More information can be found at
<http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Berlin_Hackathon_2011>.
The Berlin Hackathon 2011 is an opportunity for MediaWiki hackers to come
together, squash bugs and write crazy new features. Our main focus this time
around will probably be:
* Improving usability / accessibility
* Interactive Maps
* Fixing the parser
* WMF Ops (new data center, virtualization)
* Supporting the Wiki Loves Monuments image hunt
* Squashing bugs
If you have different ideas, please let us know:
<http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Berlin_Hackathon_2011#Topics>
The Hackathon will be hosting the Language committee and Wiki loves Monuments
group. There is a limited number of seats reserved for these groups and if you
belong to one of them, you should receive an invitation code soon.
If you have any doubts or questions, contact us at <hackathon(a)wikimedia.de>.
We’re excited to see you in Berlin, your Hackathon Team
Daniel Kinzler (Program Coordinator)
Nicole Ebber (Logistics)
Cornelius Kibelka (Assistant)
Workshop on Semantic Publication (SePublica 2011) –
http://sepublica.mywikipaper.org
8th Extended Semantic Web Conference (ESWC 2011) – http://www.eswc2011.org
May 30th, Hersonissos, Crete, Greece
Keynote by Steve Pettifer: “Utopia Documents and The Semantic
Biochemical Journal experiment”
SUBMISSION DEADLINE March 15 (for late-breaking news: March 31)
We are particularly interested in:
• Late breaking news: tell us in a nutshell what you are doing (1 page)
– related to the workshop topic
• Lighting talks: present your vision of technology! Contribute your
short talk (2 slides, 2 minutes) right on site, during the workshop!
• Demos: would you be interested in presenting a short demo of your
software? (2–5 pages)
ELSEVIER BEST SEMANTIC PAPER AWARD: US$ 750+250 for the most innovative
and feasible proposal concerning semantic publishing
LNCS POST-PROCEEDINGS OF SELECTED PAPERS
SUBMISSION AND PROCEEDINGS
Page limits are:
• Research papers: 12 pages
• Position papers: min. 2 pages, max. 5 pages
• System descriptions: min. 2 pages, max. 5 pages.
• Late breaking news: 1 page
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
Please submit your paper via EasyChair at
http://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=sepublica2011
IMPORTANT DATES
Paper/Demo Submission Deadline (extended): Tuesday March 15, 23:59
Hawaii Time
Late Breaking News Submission: March 31
Acceptance Notification: April 1
Camera Ready Version: April 15
SePublica Workshop: May 30
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?
--
Christoph Lange, Jacobs Univ. Bremen, http://kwarc.info/clange, Skype
duke4701
Semantic Publication workshop at ESWC 2011, May 30, Hersonissos, Crete,
Greece
Submission deadline March 15, http://SePublica.mywikipaper.org
LNCS Post-proceedings of selected submissions, Best Paper Award by Elsevier
* Apologies for cross-posting *
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
CFP: Workshop on Interdependent Networks: Quality, Influence and Evolution in
Social and Information Networks (WIN2011)
at the 22nd ACM Hypertext 2011 which will be held in Eindhoven, NL on June 6-9 2011.
Website: https://sites.google.com/site/ht2011win/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The emergence of new social technologies has not only changed our everyday life but also has led to new forms of collective information goods such as media collections, commentary and software. Innovative online production systems have been designed for people to share their ideas, their experiences and their knowledge enabling the collaborative production of such information goods.
The nature of these collective information goods produced using online production systems ranges from pooled information (e.g., Flickr, del.icio.us, Slashdot) to structured information (e.g., Wikipedia, Factual.com), and tightly coupled information (e.g., open source software). This spectrum describes both the coupling of the components of an information good as well as to what extent certain coordination, communication and collaboration processes between participants were required to develop this good. Concretely, these information goods consist of a social dimension which comprises links between people based on their interactions and the information dimension which are links based on syntactic, semantic or logical relations within these goods. Thus, to effectively understand collective information goods, one must take a multi-dimensional approach that addresses the interdependence between social relationships and the networked information that those relationships produce.
Only recently have researchers begun to study the collective information goods using multi-dimensional approaches. This workshop aims to bring together experts in network analysis, information networks, semantics and social media to further the development and exchange of knowledge around computational network analysis methods for multi-dimensional networks. We are particularly interested in work that convers the following three areas:
* Quality - how do we measure quality of a collective information good using network analysis? What is the relationship between quality information and reputation? How do online production systems cater for quality?
* Influence - how do we measure the influence of information networks on social networks and vice versa? Are types of networks more influential than others?
* Evolution - how do information and social networks co-evolve? What techniques can be used for measuring and describing evolution?
+++Topics include+++
* Models of influence in social media including Twitter, Facebook and others
* Measures and techniques for assessing quality in online production systems such as reputation systems in Wikipedia
* Measures and techniques for assessing influence in online production systems
* Empirical studies of influence, quality and evolution in social media
* Approaches towards influencing users and quality in online production systems
* (Co-)evolution of social and information networks
* Network visualizations of quality, influence and evolution
+++Important Dates+++
April 1, 2011: Submission Date
April 29, 2011: Notification Date
May 10, 2011: Early conference registration deadline
June 6, 2011: Workshop Date
+++Contributions+++
We invite paper submissions consisting of original, unpublished research that is not under review by another conference, journal, or workshop. Authors of accepted submissions will be invited to present their work at the workshop, and at least one author of each paper must register for the workshop.
Submissions should be six (6) pages in length and should be formatted according to the official ACM SIG proceedings template (http://www.acm.org/sigs/publications/proceedings-templates) and submitted via EasyChair.
All accepted papers will be included in the online workshop proceedings, which will be published via CEUR (http://ceur-ws.org/).
+++ Organizers+++
Paul Groth, VU University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Laura Hollink, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Claudia Müller-Birn, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany
Markus Strohmaier, Graz University of Technology, Austria and Palo Alto Research Center, USA
+++Program Committee+++
Fabian Abel, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Wouter van Atteveldt, VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Bettina Berendt, K.U. Leuven, Belgium
Pablo Castels, Universidad Autónonoma de Madrid, Spain
Marcelo Cataldo, Carnegie Mellon University, USA
Daniel Gayo, Universidad de Oviedo, Spain
Denis Helic, TU Graz, Austria
Lichan Hong, PARC, USA
George Thomas Kannampallil, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA
Sheila Kinsela, DERI NUI Galway, Ireland
Christian Körner TU Graz, Austria
Kristina Lerman, Information Science Institute - USC, USA
Jacco van Ossebruggen, CWI, The Netherlands
Anabel Quan-Haase, The University of Western Ontario, Canada
Dirk Riehle, Friedrich-Alexander University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany
Camille Roth, CNRS, France
Jérôme Kunegis, University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany
Bongwon Suh, PARC, USA
Sharoda Paul, PARC, USA
Shenghui Wang, VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Arkaitz Zubiaga, UNED, Spain
Kind regards,
Paul Groth, Laura Hollink, Claudia Müller-Birn, Markus Strohmaier
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claudia Müller-Birn
Visiting Assistant Professor
FU Berlin | Institute of Computer Science | Networked Information Systems
phone: +49 30 838 75256
mail: clmb(a)inf.fu-berlin.de
web: www.clmb.de