Pursuant to prior discussions about the need for a research
policy on Wikipedia, WikiProject Research is drafting a
policy regarding the recruitment of Wikipedia users to
participate in studies.
At this time, we have a proposed policy, and an accompanying
group that would facilitate recruitment of subjects in much
the same way that the Bot Approvals Group approves bots.
The policy proposal can be found at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Research
The Subject Recruitment Approvals Group mentioned in the proposal
is being described at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Subject_Recruitment_Approvals_Group
Before we move forward with seeking approval from the Wikipedia
community, we would like additional input about the proposal,
and would welcome additional help improving it.
Also, please consider participating in WikiProject Research at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Research
--
Bryan Song
GroupLens Research
University of Minnesota
Hi all;
I'm creating a census[1] with all the anti-vandalism bots in the Wikimedia
projects history. I want to research the features and techniques used in all
these past years. I need your help for compiling all the nicks of those
bots. You can help adding info to the page, but if you don't have free time
for that, write only the nickname and I will retrieve all the available info
about the bot.
With the currently available information, I have found two main categories
of anti-vandalism bots:
* First generation: simple scoring systems based in regular expressions and
heuristics.
* Second generation: machine learning, neural networks and bayesian filters.
Have you got suggestions to this classification? What is your opinion about
the past and the future of anti-vandalism bots? Can FlaggedRevs and similar
approaches make these bots useless?
Thanks,
emijrp
[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Emijrp/Anti-vandalism_bot_census#Census
Hi all,
My name is Lior Gelernter and I'm a Ph.D. student from Bar-Ilan
University in Israel.
I'm currently conducting research regarding the early history of
Wikipedia - actually, it's prehistory in Nupedia. While I have a
comprehensive record of Nupedia-l mailing list thanks to Joseph
Reagle's archive, I can't find any copies of Nupedia's Advisory-l
mailing list, which was restricted to members of the it's advisory
board. Does anyone know who may have copies of it, if those even
exist?
Thanks in advance,
Lior
So far, the best phrasing I've come up with is: "What stands in the
way of building and supplying low-cost, high-quality mathematics
education via the internet?"
The art of encyclopedia-building doesn't seem to carry over directly
to education. This should be of fairly general concern (the Wikimedia
Foundation's mission is about developing and disseminating educational
content).
I think there's a knowledge gap in there, maybe more than one. It's
much easier for me to think about "engineering solutions" than it is
to precisely specify a research problem question!! In particular, I'm
thinking about
(a) building interactive textbooks that work for self-guided learners
(b) building technologies to support live tutorials over the web
(c) building infrastructure to help in developing good survey articles
or similar content
The faculty here might want me to "pick one", but this is hard for me
to do because I see each of these three approaches as being part of
the puzzle. Asking how well one of them works in absence of the other
is a bit like asking how well a fish can breathe in the absence of
water.
So maybe the "research question" is about asking: What is the family
resemblance of (a)-(c)? How do they work together as a system? Or
maybe the question is about whether a given implementation of (a)-(c)
shows any promise?
I seem to be struggling to switch from a hacking-oriented way of
thinking about things to a research-oriented way of thinking about
things. I'd appreciate some feedback from those of you in a position
to offer advice on these matters.
Joe,
You might want to look at The Math Forum, http://mathforum.org
In particular, check out the Problem of the Week and Ask Dr. Math.
Answers to Problem of the Week and questions to Ask Dr. Math are
answered by volunteers, who try to guide the students to understanding
rather than handing them answers. They have an impressive
architecture to triage questions. When the perfect answer has already
been written, it gets sent. New questions are sent to live humans.
Their work is really impressive. So I would start your research with
the question: What can I do even better than Math Forum?
Hope this helps!
-- Amy
On Nov 23, 2010, at 8:16 AM, Joe Corneli wrote:
> So far, the best phrasing I've come up with is: "What stands in the
> way of building and supplying low-cost, high-quality mathematics
> education via the internet?"
>
> The art of encyclopedia-building doesn't seem to carry over directly
> to education. This should be of fairly general concern (the Wikimedia
> Foundation's mission is about developing and disseminating educational
> content).
>
> I think there's a knowledge gap in there, maybe more than one. It's
> much easier for me to think about "engineering solutions" than it is
> to precisely specify a research problem question!! In particular, I'm
> thinking about
>
> (a) building interactive textbooks that work for self-guided learners
> (b) building technologies to support live tutorials over the web
> (c) building infrastructure to help in developing good survey articles
> or similar content
>
> The faculty here might want me to "pick one", but this is hard for me
> to do because I see each of these three approaches as being part of
> the puzzle. Asking how well one of them works in absence of the other
> is a bit like asking how well a fish can breathe in the absence of
> water.
>
> So maybe the "research question" is about asking: What is the family
> resemblance of (a)-(c)? How do they work together as a system? Or
> maybe the question is about whether a given implementation of (a)-(c)
> shows any promise?
>
> I seem to be struggling to switch from a hacking-oriented way of
> thinking about things to a research-oriented way of thinking about
> things. I'd appreciate some feedback from those of you in a position
> to offer advice on these matters.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Dear Felipe,
We did investigate other tools before deciding to embark on this new
project, as you rightly point out we should minimize code overlap.
Pywikipediabot is an editing tool as far as I know and your tool,
WikixRay, has definitely proven itself. However, I believe that a
no-sql solution will give better performance than sql databases and
that has been one of the main reasons to write this tool.
I am not sure if a separate mailing list is required, at the moment
it's not, but thanks for the suggestion and I have added the SVN link.
Best,
Diederik
> To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> <wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <376712.40857.qm(a)web27504.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
>
> --- El mi?, 10/11/10, Diederik van Liere <dvanliere(a)gmail.com> escribi?:
>
> De: Diederik van Liere <dvanliere(a)gmail.com>
> Asunto: [Wiki-research-l] Editor Trends Study - Improving the tool
> Para: wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Fecha: mi?rcoles, 10 de noviembre, 2010 00:02
>
> Hi, Diederik,
>
> I'm also glad to see progress in this project. Some comments inline.
>
> Dear researchers,
>
> Recently, we started the Editor Trends Study (http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Editor_Trends_Study).
> The goal of this study is to get a better understanding of the community
>
> dynamics within the different Wikipedia projects.
>
> Part of this project consists of developing a tool (http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Editor_Trends_Study/Software)
>
> that parses a Wikipedia dump file, extracts the required information, stores it
> in a database and exports it to a CSV file. This CSV file can then be used in a
> statistical program such as R, Stata or SAS.
>
> Well, I would have expected that the team would have done some previous search for open source code already available, that implements at least some (if not exactly all or the very same) of the planned functionalities.
>
> Some examples are my own tool, WikiXRay, and Pywikpediabot (that, AFAIK, now it also includes a fast parser of Wikipedia dump files).
>
> For my tool, now I use git for version control and you can use any of the two repos available (the official at libresoft, or the mirror at Gitorious):
>
> http://git.libresoft.es/WikixRay/
> http://gitorious.org/wikixray/wikixray
>
> Well, they might not be the best possible software available, but I guess they can help to solve some problems, or at least help you to speed up the development and to avoid starting from scratch.
>
>
> We are looking for some volunteers that would enjoy testing the tool. You don't need to be a
> software developer (although it helps :)) to help us; some patience, a bit of time and
> a fairly recent computer is all you need. You should be comfortable installing programs,
>
> working with a command-line interface and have basic Subversion experience.
> Python experience is a real bonus!
>
> The testing will focus on getting the tool to run without any supervision. For more background information, have a look at:
>
> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Editor_Trends_Study/Software
>
> Perhaps you're going to provide this info later, but I don't see the links to your SVN repo (only [] ).
>
> We are testing the tool with the largest Wikipedia projects, so if you would like to replicate
>
> the analysis on your own favorite Wikipedia project or help improve the quality of the tool then please contact me off-list.
>
> I think it should be more effective to have another public list to which people specifically interested in this tool can suscribe (for example, like we have one for XML dumps exclusively).
>
> This should sensibly reduce the number of duplicated bug reports, and comments, since other people can learn about known issues.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Best,
> Felipe.
>
> Best,
>
> Diederik
Dear Piotr,
Thanks for your comments. A GUI is not very likely on the roadmap as
that requires significant time to develop, but I will try my best to
make the online documentation as clear as possible and you can always
email we if you have any questions.
Best,
Diederik
> To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> <wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <4CD9D9E3.4040904(a)post.pl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Diederik van Liere wrote:
>
>> We are looking for some volunteers that would enjoy testing the tool.
>> You don't need to be a
>> software developer (although it helps :)) to help us; some patience, a
>> bit of time and
>> a fairly recent computer is all you need. You should be comfortable
>> installing programs,
>> working with a command-line interface and have basic Subversion experience.
>> Python experience is a real bonus!
>
> Quick feedback:
> * glad to see progress!
> * the wiki pages you link seem well designed and how-to's appear to make
> sense :)
> * as long as there is a need for a command-line interface and no
> graphical user interface, many would-be users will not be able to use it
> * ditto for things like Python and Subversion (I never even heard of the
> latter...).
>
> I assume that having a GUI is planned in some foreseeable future?
>
>
> --
> Piotr Konieczny
>
> "To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on
> one's laurels, is defeat." --J?zef Pilsudski
Dear researchers,
Recently, we started the Editor Trends Study (
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Editor_Trends_Study).
The goal of this study is to get a better understanding of the community
dynamics within the different Wikipedia projects.
Part of this project consists of developing a tool (
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Editor_Trends_Study/Software)
that parses a Wikipedia dump file, extracts the required information, stores
it
in a database and exports it to a CSV file. This CSV file can then be used
in a
statistical program such as R, Stata or SAS.
We are looking for some volunteers that would enjoy testing the tool. You
don't need to be a
software developer (although it helps :)) to help us; some patience, a bit
of time and
a fairly recent computer is all you need. You should be comfortable
installing programs,
working with a command-line interface and have basic Subversion experience.
Python experience is a real bonus!
The testing will focus on getting the tool to run without any supervision.
For more background information, have a look at:
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Editor_Trends_Study/Software
We are testing the tool with the largest Wikipedia projects, so if you would
like to replicate
the analysis on your own favorite Wikipedia project or help improve the
quality of the tool then please contact me off-list.
Best,
Diederik
We're hosting a three day RecentChangesCamp in January 2011 in Canberra.
Details are available at http://recentchangescamp.org/wiki/Canberra . We'd
love to see wiki researchers attend, to lend that perspective to the
discussions that will take place.
*January 28-30, 2011*
*University of Canberra, Bruce, ACT, Australia*
Want to join? Just add your name to the list of
attendees<http://recentchangescamp.org/wiki/Canberra/attendees>!
We'll convene at the location on Friday and wrap up on Sunday. Check back
for the Agenda <http://recentchangescamp.org/wiki/Canberra/Agenda>. There is
no cost to participate other than
transportation<http://recentchangescamp.org/wiki/Canberra/transportation>.
We may even be able to help you find
lodging<http://recentchangescamp.org/wiki/Canberra/location#Lodging>
.
What is Recent Changes Camp, anyway?Recent Changes Camp was born from the
intersection of wiki and Open Space. Since 2006, participants from all over
North America and the globe have gathered together for a common purpose:
discussing the past, present, and future of the technology and collaborative
method that is wiki. RCC is a chance for everyone in the wiki community,
something we like to call Wiki Ohana, to meet and have a fun, productive
conversation about our passion for wikis of all stripes.
Going far beyond technology, we're interested in wiki culture and other
networks/groups/etc. that share many of the values implicit in it — from
cultural creatives, to public participation and free culture advocates. If
you use a wiki or you value open collaboration, Recent Changes Camp is
created for you. RCC is about openness and inclusion, collaboration and
community, creativity and flow. Further down this page you can check out a
sampling of sessions we've enjoyed in the past, along with pictures and
videos from previous events.
This unconference/BarCamp has been held at least once every year since 2006
(and twice in 2007). Unlike a conventional conference, where everything's
pre-planned and structured, RecentChangesCamp is a gathering where we decide
for ourselves what we're going to get out of it by offering sessions each
morning on whatever we want (and of course ad hoc sessions can form at any
time). There's no agenda until we make it up! Now, that might sound a bit
chaotic if you've never been to this type of gathering, but be prepared to
be surprised at how much people can learn and create when they collaborate
spontaneously.
With an emergent agenda, it can be hard to describe specifically what you
will get from participating in Recent Changes Camp. In large part, that is
up to you to be responsible for. Participants often say greater sense of
wiki community, broader sense of wiki way and wiki tools, or more excitement
about our future together as well as inspiration and discovery.
At Recent Changes Camp, everybody is welcomed. You don't need to be an
expert on anything, and you certainly don't need to consider yourself a
geek. Collaboration thrives on diversity! All you need to bring is an open
mind, and a willingness to participate, whether by teaching or by taking an
active role in discussions. And, don't forget, an unconference is what we
make it, so let's make it enlightening and fun.
Sincerely,
Laura Hale
Hi all - this conference will be of interest to many folks on this list!
Andrea
*************************************************************
iConference 2011: Early-bird registration available through Dec. 14, 2010
8-11 February, 2011, Seattle, USA
http://www.ischools.org/iConference11/2011index/
*************************************************************
Register today for the iConference:
http://www.ischools.org/iConference11/registration/
Sixth annual iConference
February 8-11, 2011
Renaissance Hotel
Seattle, Washington
peer-reviewed papers -- posters -- alternative events -- Doctoral
Student Colloquium -- Junior Faculty & Postdoc Colloquium
The iConference is presented by the iSchools, an association of 28
academic institutions spanning eight countries worldwide dedicated to
advancing the information field in the 21st century.
Why attend the iConference? Here are three great reasons:
1. Quality and breadth of research--we received a record number of
submissions in response to our call for participation, making this
year’s reviews our most selective ever. With presentations spanning
design, e-learning, health, knowledge organization, open access,
social media, and more, you’re sure to experience much that pertains
to your area of expertise.
2. Unparalleled networking opportunities--the iConference draws fellow
professionals who share your passion and research interests. It’s a
dynamic experience that fosters interaction, spontaneity, reflection,
and forward movement.
3. It's fun--this year's venue was selected for its first class
conference amenities, not to mention breathtaking views of downtown
Seattle and Puget Sound. The city’s many attractions are all in easy
walking distance. Our opening reception will be held amidst the
stunning architecture of Seattle's award-winning library.
Want more? Visit our website for additional details, including a
complete conference agenda.
http://www.ischools.org/iConference11/2011index/
iConference 2011 is hosted by the University of Washington Information
School. Presenting Sponsors include the National Science Foundation,
Microsoft Research, Intelius, and Serials Solutions. Additional
support provided by Washington Research Foundation, WebJunction, the
Seattle Public Library, and the University of Washington Libraries.
:: Andrea Forte
:: Assistant Professor
:: Alternative Events Co-chair iConference 2011
:: College of Information Science and Technology, Drexel University
:: http://www.andreaforte.net