I note that the deadline for voting for the "Wikimedia France Research Award" is today. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_France_Research_Award It seems to me that there is lacking a discussion of the pros and cons of the five nominated papers. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_France_Research_Award/nom… There are summaries, jury comments, and a few voter comments (eg, Liam Wyatt provides a good one). However, even though I have written a Wikipedia research review (http://www2.imm.dtu.dk/pubdb/views/edoc_download.php/6012/pdf/imm6012.pdf) it is still not completely clear to me what the merit of each individual article is. Here are a few comments: "DBpedia: a nucleus for a web of open data" is a very interesting and influential idea. It is unclear to me to which degree the idea of DBpedia is different from the YAGO idea presented in "YAGO: a core of semantic knowledge unifying WordNet and Wikipedia". The difference is briefly described in section 7 "related work" in the DBpedia paper. Is this sufficient for the award? Or should we award the DBpedia people for the tools provided at dbpedia.org? "A content-driven reputation system for the Wikipedia" from 2007 is on (what later?) can to be known as the WikiTrust system as far as I understand. Wikipedia trust computation was also described previously in, e.g., "Computing Trust from Revision History". Why are we regarding "A content-driven reputation system for the Wikipedia" as stronger than Zeng and McGuinness papers? I suppose that since the Zeng paper is using MCMC in BUGS it must be awfully slow? "Can history be open source? Wikipedia and the future of the past" is well-written with a great overview, but I have a difficulty in finding original research questions, apart from the very general "How did it develop? How does it work? How good is the historical writing? What are the potential implications for our practice as scholars, teachers, and purveyors of the past to the general public?" His comparison of encyclopedia is interesting, but I lack a more quantitative and methodological approach taken in the Nature paper and in some of the later studies. /Finn Årup Nielsen On 03/08/2013 01:30 AM, Rémi Bachelet wrote: best Deadline for paper suggestion is August 1st. Thanks!