the Knowledge Media Research Center, especially the Leibniz Graduate
School for Knowledge Media Research and the ScienceCampus Tuebingen, would
like to invite the young researchers of your Lab to the
Summer School on "Making Sense of Social Media"
to be held in August 1-4, 2011 in the Swabian Alb, Germany.
The Summer School addresses empirically oriented psychologists and social
scientists dealing with questions in the field of Web 2.0 and social
media. It presents a unique opportunity for young researchers to meet
fellow researchers and learn from outstanding scientific leaders by
developing new research ideas. Across three parallel workshop tracks
(about 10 participants each), the Summer School »Making sense of social
media« provides the framework to discuss recent developments from a
scientific point of view, share ideas and gain insights into how we as a
research community can make sense of social media.
- Robert Kraut, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA
- Judith Donath, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA
- Sonja Utz, VU University, Amsterdam, NL (Track I: Learning about Others
- Dan Cosley, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY (Track II: Learning from
Others Social Navigation)
- Jan Van Aalst, The University of Hong Kong, RC (Track III: Learning with
Others Knowledge Building)
The Summer School is designed for PhD students and post-doctoral
researchers within two years after completion of their thesis in
psychology or social sciences.
We want to offer your young researchers to take part in and we thank you
very much informing them by this E-Mail. The deadline for application is
May 1, 2011. All information are available on web:
WissenschaftsCampus Tübingen "Bildung in Informationsumwelten"
Institut für Wissensmedien
Tel.: ++49 (0)7071 979-310
Fax: +49 (0)7071 979-300
My research team and I are ready to begin data collection on a new study
called the Wikipedia Progression of Participation (WPP) project. Our
goal is to use a combination of pre-post surveys and activity analysis
to understand how Wikipedians move from their first editing experiences
to different forms of participation over time. Details about the project
are available on our project page:
I am sending this message because our methodology requires us to contact
Wikipedians to request their participation. Complying with Wikipedia’s
policies and best practices, being respectful, and remaining
non-disruptive to the community is very important to us. To that end, we
have discussed our project with other Wikipedia researchers, conducted
informal discussions with several folks at the Wikimedia foundation,
consulted with members of the Wikipedia Research Committee, and received
IRB/human subjects certification at UC Berkeley.
Now we would love your feedback so we may address any concerns as we
prepare to begin the study. We plan to begin the study later this month
(April). Please feel free to email me directly or post comments on our
We look forward to your thoughts and feedback!
School of Information
University of California, Berkeley
Workshop on Mathematical Wikis (MathWikis-2011)
at ITP (2nd International Conference on Interactive Theorem Proving) 2011
Nijmegen, Netherlands, August 27th, 2011
INVITED SPEAKER: Joe Corneli: The PlanetMath Encyclopedia
ABSTRACT SUBMISSION DEADLINE May 30th
Mathematics is increasingly becoming a collaborative discipline. The
Internet has simplified the distributed development, review, and
improvement of large proofs, theories, libraries, and knowledge
repositories, also giving rise to all kinds of collaboratively developed
mathematical learning resources. Examples include the PlanetMath free
encyclopedia, the Polymath collaborative collaborative proof development
efforts, and also large collaboratively developed formal libraries.
Interactive computer assistance, semantic representation, and linking
with other datasets on the Semantic Web are becoming very interesting
aspects of collaborative mathematical developments. The ITP 2011
MathWikis workshop aims to bring together developers and major users of
mathematical wikis and collaborative and social tools for mathematics.
TOPICS include but are not limited to:
* wikis and blogs for informal, semantic, semiformal, and formal
* general techniques and tools for online collaborative mathematics;
* tools for collaboratively producing, presenting, publishing, and
interacting with online mathematics;
* automation and computer-human interaction aspects of mathematical
* practical experiences, usability aspects, feasibility studies;
* evaluation of existing tools and experiments;
* requirements, user scenarios and goals.
Researchers interested in participating are invited to submit a short
(2-10 pages) abstract via EasyChair. Submissions will be refereed by the
program committee, which will select a balanced program of high-quality
Submissions should be in standard-conforming Postscript or PDF.
To submit a paper, go to the EasyChair MathWikis page
(http://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=mathwikis11) and follow the
Final versions should be prepared in LaTeX using the easychair.cls class
file (http://www.easychair.org/easychair.zip). Proceedings will be
published as EasyChair or CEUR Workshop Proceedings.
* Submission of abstracts: May 30th, 2011, 8:00 UTC+1
* Notification: June 23rd, 2011
* Camera ready versions due: July 11th, 2011
* Workshop: August 27th, 2011
* Jesse Alama
* David Aspinall
* Joe Corneli
* Cezary Kaliszyk
* Fairouz Kamareddine
* Michael Kohlhase
* Markus Krötzsch
* Christoph Lange (co-chair)
* Lionel Mamane
* James McKinna
* Piotr Rudnicki
* Carst Tankink
* Josef Urban (co-chair)
* Denny Vrandečić
Christoph Lange, Jacobs Univ. Bremen, http://kwarc.info/clange, Skype
Semantic Publication workshop at ESWC 2011, May 30, Hersonissos, Crete,
Submission deadline March 15, http://SePublica.mywikipaper.org
LNCS Post-proceedings of selected submissions, Best Paper Award by Elsevier
Why Wikipedia works -- Wikipedia contributors for brief e-mail
The Philip Merrill College of Journalism at the University of Maryland
is seeking Wikipedia contributors willing to participate in a brief
e-mail interview. If you have been contributing to Wikipedia and you
are over 18 years old, please consider participating in our study. We
will share the result of the study with you. Your information will be
confidential and your name will not be used. If you are interested
Dr. Linda Steiner at lsteiner(a)jmail.umd.edu or
Stine Eckert at keckert(a)jmail.umd.edu.
As you might know, we're busily preparing the schedule for this year's Open Knowledge Conference - OKCon, which is going to be in Berlin on the 31st June and 1st July. We're really excited about this year's event - so much has happened in the last 12 months!
Also, it would be *fantastic* to have presentations, workshops, discussions or lightening talks from people on this list - there's so much activity in the field, it would be great to get a bit of a taster of all your work.
I've attached a short PDF version of the Call for Participation, and if you haven't already seen it you can check out the full version at
The submissions form is at http://okcon.org/2011/submit/
Looking forward to meeting lots of you in Berlin! Please get in touch with us at okcon(a)okfn.org if you have any questions or suggestions.
Registration is open at: registration: http://okcon2011.eventbrite.com/
All the best
The Open Knowledge Foundation
Promoting Open Knowledge in a Digital Age
www.okfn.org - www.opendefinition.org
Mobil: +49 171 780 870 3
I saw this and thought it might interest the folks on this list who deal
with authenticating the sources of their data. Conference organizers
specifically request "pie-in-the-sky research ideas." :-)
--- original message follows ---
From: Lionel Garth Jones<lgj(a)usenix.org>
Subject: [nylug-talk] TaPP '11 Submission Deadline Approaching
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
We're writing to remind you that the submission deadline for the 3rd
Workshop on the Theory and Practice of Provenance (TaPP '11) is quickly
approaching. Please submit all work by April 8, 2011, at 11:59 p.m. PDT.
More information and submission guidelines are available at
TaPP '11 will bring together researchers and practitioners doing
innovative work in the area of provenance. With the deluge of digital data
we are currently experiencing, it has become increasingly important to
capture and understand the origins and derivation of data--its
provenance. Provenance provides important documentation that is an
essential part of the quality of data, and it is essential to the trust
we put in, for example, the data we find on the Web and the data that is
derived from scientific experiments.
The workshop may cover any topic related to theoretical or practical
aspects of provenance, including but not limited to: provenance in
databases, work flows, programming languages, security, software
engineering, or systems; provenance on the Web; or real-world
applications of or requirements for provenance.
The Program Committee is determined to make TaPP '11 a real workshop at
which new ideas are discussed and developed and where the participants
can learn how other subjects make use of provenance. While the workshop
will have online proceedings, the Committee does not want the workshop
to become another "mini-conference" that has nothing but paper
presentations. The Committee is eager to receive short papers and vision
papers describing challenges for provenance research, brief descriptions
of new applications, proposals for mini-tutorials, pie-in-the sky
research ideas, and anything that will create a successful workshop.
While brief and readable descriptions of research are encouraged,
recycled conference submissions are strongly discouraged.
TaPP '11 will take place June 20-22, 2011, in Heraklion, Crete, Greece,
the week after the meeting of ACM SIGMOD in Athens.
We look forward to receiving your submissions!
Peter Buneman, University of Edinburgh
Juliana Freire, University of Utah
TaPP '11 Program Co-Chairs
TaPP '11 Call for Contributions
3rd Workshop on the Theory and Practice of Provenance (TaPP '11)
June 20-22, 2011, Heraklion, Crete, Greece
Submission deadline: April 8, 2011, 11:59 p.m. PDT
Resending since my reply bounced earlier... -Jodi
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jodi Schneider <jschneider(a)pobox.com>
Date: Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 10:59 AM
Subject: Re: [acawiki-general] Proposal: new hosting for AcaWiki
To: Reid Priedhorsky <reid(a)reidster.net>
Cc: wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, acawiki-general(a)lists.ibiblio.org
Glad to have your interest!
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Reid Priedhorsky <reid(a)reidster.net> wrote:
> [I am putting the most interesting stuff at the beginning, but there are
> some responses in-line below too.]
> I spoke with Mako Hill, one of the principals at AcaWiki, last week and
> am now quite enthusiastic about the system. I believe the flaws can be
> fixed and we should take advantage of the small but present community
> which is hungry for new members.
> The key problem is hosting, and Mako shares this concern. It turns out
> that the current hosts (Creative Commons) also would like to transfer
> hosting somewhere else, as running a MediaWiki is not part of their core
> mission. So, our interests align.
> Thus, I propose that we move AcaWiki hosting to Referata, retaining all
> existing history and user accounts. If acawiki.referata.com is OK, then
> it can be done for free; if keeping the acawiki.org domain is important
> (in this case, the move would be completely transparent to users), then
> we'll need to find $50/mo;
Yes--keeping the domain name is important. Otherwise, we break all links,
and alienate existing users -- many of whom do not read these lists, and who
may check the site infrequently. Since we're a nonprofit, we should ask
about a discounted price.
Further, we might want to change hosting again sometime in the future (for
instance if Referata went away or significantly changed).
I see that "Referata offers hosting of semantic wikis" but I hadn't heard of
it before, though WikiWorks is well-known. What's your connection with
Referata, and how stable are they? It appears that hosting is funded by the
fees, with the free hosting just coming along for the ride...
All I find on the FAQ is:
"From the time of its release in July 2008 until December 2009, Referata was
run by its creator, Yaron Koren <http://referata.com/wiki/User:Yaron_Koren>.
Since December 2009, it has been run byWikiWorks <http://wikiworks.com/>, a
MediaWiki consulting company that Yaron founded."
There's more info about WikiWorks at
if keeping the existing skin is important
> (which think it is not - see below), then $80/mo.
No--the existing skin needs improvement. Is there info about the default
> AcaWiki folks, what do you think about this? Have I mischaracterized
> anything about you above?
> I would be happy to lead this process (Mako gave me some technical
> people at CC to talk to) and could start on this in late April. (I have
> some unavoidable responsibilities in the next few weeks and won't have
> time until then.)
> Once this is done, I could then facilitate the other technical tasks
> which I offered to do (uploading existing stuff into AcaWiki).
It's great to have your offer of help for the transition. But one challenge
is ongoing technical leadership. I'd like some clarification from Referata
about what is included in hosting. Any volunteers for technical
administration would be welcome, too!
> >> I don't necessarily believe that we need it to be the standard MW look
> >> in all respects (though I personally like the consistency), but the wiki
> >> controls need to be consistent with other MW installs (most importantly,
> >> Wikipedia) so people can see easily that it's a wiki and in particular
> >> one they've used before.
I agree with that! We were relatively close to Wikipedia, but Wikimedia has
made significant usability improvements this past year.
> > Actually, the controls seem to me to be quite similar to the standard
> > Wikipedia layout. For example, look at
> > The page edit controls are on the top of the article, and the navigation
> > bar is on the left, all very similar to Wikipedia. Since these key
> > functional elements are very similar to the default, I assumed that your
> > comments had more to do with the aesthetic elememts. Could you perhaps
> > point out some specific differences in the core MediaWiki functionality
> > elements that you think might confuse new users who are familiar with
> > editing Wikipedia?
> Hmm, looking again you are right. I'm not sure exactly what happened;
> perhaps I was confusing AcaWiki with something else.
> Anyway, I still don't like the AcaWiki default skin. I could provide a
> specific critique of the problems I see, but it might be better to
> simply offer a better one for comparison, which I am happy to do. At a
> high level, it's a little sloppy, it wastes important vertical space,
> and standard elements (e.g., search, login) are in nonstandard
> locations. On the other hand, the default MW skin is very professional
> looking and gets these things right. It's another aspect of separation
> of responsibilities - let people who are good at web design design the
> > Actually, another reason for my comments is that I would assume that the
> > core audience of contributors (academic researchers who are willing to
> > share their research summaries online) would not have trouble trying to
> > learn how to edit, even if AcaWiki used something other than MediaWiki.
> That is true; however, many won't. Barriers to entry matter a lot more
> than one might think, even small ones. The basic theory is, folks who
> are new to a system don't care much about it and are easy to drive away
> by making small mistakes. On the other hand, if their initial experience
> is smooth and pleasant, and enables microcontributions right away, that
> builds emotional investment in the community and those people are more
> likely to come back and help build the community and the resource.
> Researchers in particular are very busy and (I claim) will have less
> patience than average to hassle with bad systems.
> I work for IBM, and sending this e-mail might be part of my job.
> However, I speak for myself only, not the company.
> acawiki-general mailing list
Hi, I'm a student planning on doing GSoC this year on mediawiki.
Specifically, I'd like to work on data dumps.
I'm writing this to gauge what would be useful to the research
community. Several ideas thrown about include:
1. JSON Dumps
2. Sqlite Dumps
3. Daily dumps of revisions in last 24 hours
4. Dumps optimized for very fast import into various external storage
and smaller size (diffs)
5. JSON/CSV for Special:Import and Special:Export
Would any of these be useful? Or is there anything else that I'm
missing, that you would consider much more useful?
Feedback would be invaluable :)
Yuvi Panda T
I'm involved with AcaWiki, so I'll start answers to your questions here. Hopefully others will comment, too.
<Resending from the subscribed address...>
On 23 Mar 2011, at 23:49, Reid Priedhorsky wrote:
> On 3/22/11 4:28 PM, Chitu Okoli wrote:
>> Reid wrote:
>>> There also appear to be various options for Semantic MediaWiki hosting:
>>> Wikia, Referata, etc. It would be nice to not have to deal with the
>>> sysadmin aspects of the project.
>> I agree that going with a reliable host would be the way to go. I think
>> that for the nature of our project, choosing a paid Referata plan would
>> probably be better than going for Wikia. I for one could probably easily
>> find grant funding to keep it going.
> Sure. If nothing else I'd be happy to chip in personally. I could also
> ask around for funding here at IBM, but I'm quite pessimistic on that.
> Paid plans run from $240 to $960/year, and we could certainly get
> started for free (http://www.referata.com/wiki/Referata:Features).
> I'm not ready to write off AcaWiki, but I have a number of significant
> concerns. Some of these I've mentioned before. I'd really like someone
> from that project to comment on these.
> * Is the project dead? The mailing list is pretty much empty and the
> amount of real editing activity in the past 30 days is pretty low.
Definitely not dead!
> * It appears that the project self-hosts - this means that the project
> has to do its own sysadmin work,
Neeru & Mike, can you comment on who's doing sysadmin work now?
> which appears to have been a problem
> (e.g., the domain expired earlier this month and no one noticed until
> the site went down!).
> * Is the target audience correct? I think we want to specifically target
> our annotated bibliography to researchers, but AcaWiki appears to be
> targeting laypeople as well as researchers (and IMO it would be very
> tricky to do both well).
The main interest, from my perspective (others may be able to add their own), is in making research more accessible. Several AcaWiki users are grad students who are writing summaries in order to consolidate their own knowledge or prepare for qualifier exams.
Asking on the
> * I don't think the focus on "summaries" is right. I think we need a
> structured infobox plus semi-structured text (e.g. sections for
> contributions, evidence, weaknesses, questions).
I agree! Right now there's some structured information, but that could be readily changed. I'm definitely open to restructuring AcaWiki, so do propose this on the mailing list (acawiki-general(a)lists.ibiblio.org), and we can discuss further.
One ongoing issue is the best way to handle bibliographic information--which has subtle complexities which we're only partly handling now.
> * It doesn't look like a MediaWiki. Since the MW software is so
> dominant, that means pretty much everyone who knows about editing wikis
> knows how to use MW - and not looking like MW means there's no immediate
> "aha! I can edit this". There's a lot of value in familiarity.
Actually, AcaWiki uses MediaWiki -- specifically Semantic Media Wiki. For full details, see
> I will post an invitation on the AcaWiki mailing to come here and
>>> One final note on bibliographic software: many of these claim to do
>>> automatic import of a reference simply by pointing the software at the
>>> publisher's web page for the references. But I have never seen this work
>>> correctly; always, the imported data needs significant cleanup, enough
>>> that personally I'd rather type it in manually anyway. For example,
>>> titles of ACM papers aren't even correctly cased on the official ACM
>>> pages (e.g.,http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753615)!
>> My only experience with "scraping" pages is with Zotero, and it does it
>> beautifully. I assume (but don't know) that the current generation of
>> other bibliography software would also do a good job. Anyway, Zotero has
>> a huge support community, and scrapers for major sources (including
>> Google Scholar for articles and Amazon for books) are kept very well up
>> to date for the most part.
> Perhaps I'm just unlucky, then - I've only ever tried it on ACM papers
> (which it failed to do well, so I stopped).
Zotero used to scrape quite well from the ACM digital library -- now that they've changed their site again the scraper needs to be updated (not hard to do). Last time I tried, Zotero scraped ok from certain ACM pages (item pages) but not from search results: YMMV.
>>> Bi-directional synchronization is hard to get right, particularly when
>>> the two sides have different data models. I think we are much
>>> better off declaring one or the other to be the master and the rest
>>> should remain read-only (i.e. export rather than synchronization).
>> I like this idea; with SMW as the primary, editable source, a read-only
>> Zotero library imported from the SMW would work well. The problem,
>> though, is that duplicate detection would need to prevent imports from
>> adding existing articles. A complete overwrite would not work, since
>> this would break article IDs for word processor integration. Zotero has
>> been slow on implementing duplicate detection, but they finally have a
>> very impressive solution in alpha
> I don't know anything about how article IDs works in Zotero, but how to
> build a unique ID for each is an interesting, subtle, and important
> problem. Others have suggested using opaque IDs such as DOI. I think
> this is a mistake, because it means that they are utterly meaningless to
> people when creating citations. For example, consider the following two
> citations that I might put in my LaTeX code.
> The first means nothing to me, but the second is a useful reminder as to
> the paper I'm citing. That's what CiteULike does, and it's built from
> first author, year, first meaningful word of title. In the tiny
> percentage of cases where this is not unique, a disambiguation digit
> could be added.
> I don't know how citation works in Word et al., but I would hope you're
> not stuck with opaque numeric IDs and/or that Zotero doesn't force you
> to use integers or something like that.
> Wiki-research-l mailing list