Hi,
I offer my personal opinion for this.
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 03:59:45 +0000
From: Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wikipedia Journal?
To: aforte(a)gatech.edu, Research into Wikimedia content and communities
<>
Cc: meta.mako(a)gmail.com
Message-ID:
<92fe56270910272059o327643es68b891678d5c2151(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> Dear Wiki-Research-L,
> Yes, as Andrea said, the original idea proposed was about a new journal
> *for* Wikipedia but it seems the consensus is that there is far more
> interest in a journal *about* wikim/pedia research. To that end, I'd like
> to gauge the opinion of the authors here about the viability of such a
> journal. I have sounded out a couple of university presses and they're
> interested in discussing the idea of funding and hosting a "Journal of
> Wikipedia Research" (or title to that effect). So, I was wondering if the
> people here could say whether such a thing would be a) viable and b) what
> factors would be important to you personally in being interested in such
> a publication.
I believe the Journal about Wikipedia is more realistic than the Journal
"for" Wikipedia.
>For example:
>- Do you think that a Journal of Wikipedia Research would be an unhealthy
>competition against WikiSym, or a boost for it?
A Journal of Wikipedia research would be helpful to WikiSym, and make it
like conference-Journal pattern should be more attractive to encourage
people.
>- Would the reputation/location of the hosting university be a factor for
>you?
I will care the achievement of the hosting university in technologies,
statistics and sociologies.
>- or, would the people on the editorial committee be a more important
>factor?
Yes, indeed.
> - would you prefer to see a journal that was entirely an
> aggregation/synthesis of other publications, or entirely filled with
> content published no where else, or, would you be happy with a mixture of
> sections (new work, re-publications, syntheses, reviews...)
I prefer to see entirely unpublished works in this Journal, if possible. I
know, it will affect the frequency of publication, but taking it 4 issues
per year, the quality of Journal is still high.
> - Would the frequency of publication be important to you? - Would you
> prefer something that only published in your particular research field
> (e.g. statistical/sociological/computer-scinece) or would you be happy
> with a variety of research fields being included in the one edition?
It should be more possible to put them all in one edition, and I always
read other fields paper when I did literature review in my area. The
research is crossing in Wiki study.
>- Would it be more important to you to publish in existing journals with an
>established reputation or to publish in a journal with a scope that is
>specific to Wikip/media (even though it's reputation would not yet be
>established)?
>Of course, these are all just exploratory/scoping questions just to gauge
>interest. The original idea that I had proposed was for a different thing,
>but, if the research community here would like to see a journal created for
>them (in some way/shape/form) and if you believe that such a thing would
>help our field grow and develop - then I'm happy to try and help! :-)
>Sincerely,
>-Liam
>wittylama.com/blog
>Peace, love & metadata
I know it is personal view, but I believe this area is worthy to publish
their academic contributions in a new Journal. As this research includes
many different research fields, I assume some of us have the same
experience that reading other fields paper when searched their own
literatures as me. so we wouldn't against to put all fields together.
Hope it is helpful.
Zeyi He
PhD Candidate
Department of Sociology
University of York
Dear Wiki-research,
I'm starting to build the case here in Australia with some universities and
academic funding organisations that working with Wikipedia is a good and
important part of the educative role of an academic. I'm also conscious that
there are quite limited avenues for academics to be able to
professionally-justify the time they might devote to improving Wikipedia in
their relevant subject area. To that end, I'm beginning to float the idea of
a peer-reviewed journal for academics to write Wikipedia articles. [Note,
this is not the same as most discussions on this mailing list which are
about studying Wikipedia itself]. So, as this list is made up of a high
proportion of academics who have a strong interest in Wikipedia I thought
I'd like to pass the idea pass you too.
I've written up a first pass at the proposal here:
http://www.wittylama.com/2009/09/wikipedia-journal/ (and it's been copied
into the Strategic planning wiki proposals here
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Journal ). There are obviously
many issues to sort out not the least of which is funding and scope. But,
I'd like your feedback on whether you think it a feasible/desirable way to
enable greater academic participation in Wikipedia. I.e. by giving added
incentives (naming rights, non-editability) and a more familiar format, but
at the same time increasing the quality of Wikipedia without having to
change its policies or practices. At the same time I hope it would increase
the perceived legitimacy of Wikipedia by demonstrating that we care about
their expertise and also increases awareness of what free-culture and
free-licensing is all about (because the details of the cc-by-sa license
would need to be explained to the authors).
Just a suggestion, and I thought the people on this list might be the kind
of people who might like to recruit their friendly neighbourhood professor
to write for the first edition! :-)
All the best,
-Liam [[witty lama]]
wittylama.com/blog
Peace, love & metadata
I've developed a Python script that can compare the coverage and content of WP and EB. I'm using it for comparative analysis of gender coverage (as seen here [1]) but expect it could be used for other things. If you'd be interested in collaborating on something that could make use of it, drop me a note.
[1]:http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/social/wikipedia/wp-eb-gender-bias-coverag…
--
Regards, http://www.mit.edu/~reagle/
Joseph Reagle E0 D5 B2 05 B6 12 DA 65 BE 4D E3 C1 6A 66 25 4E
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: jamesmikedupont(a)googlemail.com <jamesmikedupont(a)googlemail.com>
Date: Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 3:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia meets git
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
see my new blogpost word leve blaming for wikipedia via git and perl ...
http://fmtyewtk.blogspot.com/2009/10/mediawiki-git-word-level-blaming-one.h…
Next step is ready :
1. I have a single script that will pull a given article and check in
the revisions into git,
it is not perfect, but works.
http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~jamesmikedupont/+junk/wikiatransfer/revision/8
you run it like this,from inside a git repo :
perl GetRevisions.pl "Article_Name"
git blame Article_Name/Article.xml
git push origin master
The code that splits up the line is in Process File, this splits all
spaces into newlines.
that way we get a word level blame.
if ($insidetext)
{
## split all lines on the space
s/(\ )/\\\n/g;
print OUT $_;
}
The Article is here:
http://github.com/h4ck3rm1k3/KosovoWikipedia/blob/master/Wiki/2008_Kosovo_d…
here are the blame results.
http://github.com/h4ck3rm1k3/KosovoWikipedia/blob/master/Wiki/2008_Kosovo_d…
Problem is that github does not like this amount of processor power
begin used and kills the process, you can do a local git blame.
Now we have the tool to easily create a repository from wikipedia, or
any other export enabled mediawiki.
mike
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l