Dear colleagues,
There is a *widely-circulated* statement in Chinese Internet that
Mr. Ward Cunningham has expressed that, "starting from Wiki, the U.S.
leadership in Internet will be gradually overtaken by China". Is it
true?
I cannot find the original quote in English. The original
statement in Chinese goes as below:
"维基创始人沃德*坎 宁安（Ward Cunningham）就曾表示：从维基开始，美国全球互联网的领袖位置可能要逐渐被中国所替代。"
My translation of this statement is provided here:
"Wiki-founder Mr. Ward Cunningham has expressed that: Starting from
Wiki, the U.S. leadership position in Internet will be gradually
overtaken by China."
By *widely-circulated* I mean that I found about 1,500 search
results from Google Hong Kong (the equivalent of Google China now)
with the phrase: "从维基开始，美国全球互联网的领袖位置可能要逐渐被中国所替代". The results were
about 250 search results from Baidu, and about 1,500 search results
from Yahoo! China.
Best,
han-teng liao
=======================================================
ICWSM-12 Workshop on
Real-Time Analysis and Mining of Social Streams (RAMSS)
http://www.ramss.ws/
June 4, 2012 - Dublin, Ireland
=======================================================
CALL FOR PAPERS
1st International Workshop on Real-Time Analysis and Mining of Social
Streams (RAMSS)
in conjuntion with ICWSM-12, the 6th International AAAI Conference on
Weblogs and Social Media
Overview
--------
The recent increase of real-time data provided by users on social
networking services has leveraged an importance gain of the real-time
processing of social streams. Processing the streams in real-time can help
enhance search engines, news media, and many other systems by feeding them
with fresh knowledge about current affairs. Performing such analysis in
real-time is of utmost importance for early reporting of breaking news,
events, trends, and any other knowledge related to current affairs.
However, analyzing social streams in real-time makes the task more
challenging as it requires making decisions without clue of what will be
next in the stream.
The RAMSS workshop aims to bring together experts in the real-time analysis
and mining of social streams, as well as to further develop and exchange
knowledge around these tasks. Given the novelty of the research field, the
workshop also aims to encourage attendees to build a discussion forum to
share on the current state of the research field, as well as to propose
solutions for the shortcomings.
Topics of interest
------------------
To the end of going further in the above research, the workshop seeks
contributions that analyze and mine social streams as they become publicly
available, and encourages experts and interested attendees to take part.
The workshop aims to be specific in the real-time analysis and mining of
social streams, but it is open to a wide variety of tasks that can be
applied to those streams. Topics of interest include (but are not limited
to):
* Real-time search in social streams.
* Summarization of social streams as it comes out.
* Early detection of trends, news, and events.
* Real-time recommendation of information, who to follow, etc.
* Real-time classification and clustering.
* Real-time social network analysis.
* Behavioral prediction.
* Real-time sentiment analysis and opinion mining.
* Real-time user modeling.
* Real-time natural language learning, processing and understanding.
We also welcome contributions discussing potential research directions,
evaluation frameworks, publicly available datasets and case studies on
industrial applications.
Important dates
---------------
* Paper Submission Deadline: March 2, 2012.
* Notification to Authors: March 16, 2012.
* Camera-Ready Versions Due: April 2, 2012.
* Workshop day: June 4, 2012.
Paper Submission
----------------
Submissions must be anonymous. Papers must be sent in a PDF file, and
written in English. Participants are invited to submit: (1) a short
position or demonstration paper of 4 pages in length or (2) a full-length
technical paper of up to 10 pages in length. Submissions must follow the
AAAI style (http://www.aaai.org/Publications/Author/author.php). Papers
will be reviewed by at least three PC members, and accepted papers will be
published in the workshop proceedings.
Submissions can be made through Easychair:
https://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=ramss2012
For inquieries, please contact: contact(a)ramss.ws
Organizing Committee
--------------------
* Arkaitz Zubiaga, City University of New York, USA
* Damiano Spina, UNED, Spain
* Maarten de Rijke, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
* Markus Strohmaier, Graz University of Technology, Austria
* Mor Naaman, Rutgers University, USA
Program Committee
-----------------
* Omar Alonso, Microsoft, USA
* Alejandro Bellogín, Autonomous University of Madrid, Spain
* Roi Blanco, Yahoo! Research, Spain
* Paul Clough, University of Sheffield, UK
* Munmun De Choudhury, Microsoft, USA
* Daniel Gayo-Avello, University of Oviedo, Spain
* David F. Gleich, Purdue University, USA
* Julio Gonzalo, UNED, Spain
* Andreas Hotho, University of Würzburg, Germany
* Geert-Jan Houben, TU Delft, The Netherlands
* Christian Körner, TU Graz, Austria
* Danielle H. Lee, University of Pittsburgh, USA
* Adam Marcus, MIT, USA
* Edgar Meij, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
* Donald Metzler, Information Sciences Institute, USA
* Meenakshi Nagarajan, IBM Research, USA
* Paolo Rosso, Technical University of Valencia, Spain
* Vivek Singh, University of California Irvine, USA
* Marc A. Smith, Connected Action, USA
------------------------------------------------------------
***** Second Call for Submissions and Papers *****
------------------------------------------------------------
AI Mashup Challenge 2012 https://sites.google.com/site/aimashup12/
of the
9th Extended Semantic Web Conference (ESWC)
http://2012.eswc-conferences.org/
May 27 - 31, 2012, Heraklion, Greece
Topics of interest
A mashup is a lightweight (web) application that offers new
functionality by combining, aggregating and transforming resources and
services available on the web.
The AI mashup challenge accepts and awards "intelligent" mashups that
use AI technology, including but not restricted to • machine learning
and data mining
• machine vision
• natural language processing
• reasoning
• ontologies and the semantic web.
The emphasis is not on providing and consuming semantic markup, but
rather on using intelligence to mashup these resources in a more
powerful way.
Some examples:
• Information extraction or automatic text summarization to create a
task-oriented overview mashup for mobile devices.
• Semantic Web technology and data sources adapting to user and
task-specific configurations.
• Semantic background knowledge (such as ontologies, WordNet or Cyc) to
improve search and content combination.
• Machine translation for mashups that cross language borders.
• Machine vision technology for novel ways of aggregating images, for
instance mixing real and virtual environments.
• Intelligent agents taking over simple household planning tasks.
• Text-to-speech technology creating a voice mashup with intelligent and
emotional intonation.
• The display of Pub Med articles on a map based on geographic entity
detection referring to diseases or health centers.
You find earlier examples on the website of the 2011 challenge:
http://sites.google.com/a/fh-hannover.de/aimashup11/.
Awards
• € 1750 sponsored by Elsevier
• Speech outfit from Linguatec
• 10 O'Reilly e-books • 10 books from Addison-Wesley
Submission and deadline
The challenge tries to mediate between a grassroot bar-camp style and
standard conference organization. This means for submitters:
• You announce your mashup as soon as you are ready, simply sending an
email to the organizers (address below).
• The deadline is March 31, 2012.
• At a subpage of the mashup website provided by the organizers, you
explain your work and refer to its URL.
• Your mashup stays at your URL and under your control. You can go on
improving it.
• At review time (March 31, 2012), reviewers need a 5 page paper (LNCS
format) that explains the mashup.
• The reviewers select the most interesting mashups for presentation and
vote during the conference. • Vote is public for all conference
participants, but the reviewer quota makes up 40%. • Be prepared to a
give a brief talk and a demo during the conference.
• Awards will be handed over during the conference, and everybody will
congratulate the winners!
Organizers
• Brigitte Endres-Niggemeyer, Hannover, Germany • Krzysztof Janowicz,
Santa Barbara, USA
Program Committee
• Luis M. Vilches Blázquez, Madrid, Spain
• Christoph Lange, Jacobs University, Bremen, Germany
• Emilian Pascalau, University of Potsdam, Germany
• Giuseppe Di Fabbrizio, AT&T Labs, Florham Park NJ, USA
• Jevon Wright, Massey University, Palmerston North, NZ
• Aidan Hogan, DERI Galway, Ireland
• Alexandre Passant, DERI Galway, Ireland • Emanuele Della Valle,
Politecnico di Milano, Italy • Tomi Kauppinen, Muenster, Germany •
Thorsten Liebig, Univ. of Ulm & derivo GmbH, Germany • Mao Ye, Cornell
University, Ithaca, USA • Daniele dell'Aglio, Politecnico di Milano, Italy
Main Contact
• brigitteen(a)googlemail.com
--
Christoph Lange, Jacobs University Bremen
http://kwarc.info/clange, Skype duke4701
→ SePublica Workshop @ ESWC 2012. Crete, Greece, 27/28 May 2012.
Deadline 29 Feb. http://sepublica.mywikipaper.org
→ I-SEMANTICS 2012. Graz, Austria, 5-7 September 2012
Abstract Deadline 2 April. http://www.i-semantics.at
Relevant to researchers.
This is both
* a very popular type of argument used by cranks when pushing their pet theories
* a popular source of irritation for experts who confuse reputation
for well-sourced material and feel that anyone with a good reputation
should have their word taken at face value
* a popular source of irritation for experts who find articles with
factual errors that are miscited or simply repeat oppular but
inaccurate works (whether or not those works are a majority of overall
reputable works, if they are a majority of web citations *and* some
loud tertiary sources claim them to be in the majority, sometimes that
is enough to be received, for a time, as consensus in a field)
Ordered in my guess as to order of visibility among editors.
These three groups all get conflated, and if you start such a
discussion on a page you may trigger responses to each of those three
situations even though usually only one of them applies.
The third class of situation is one in which WP can actually
perpetuate bad, counter-field tendencies... the sort of thingw e try
to avoid with reliable sources and NOR.
S.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Goodman <dggenwp(a)gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia
(from the Chronicle) + some citation discussions
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
There are a number of interesting relies. As they too undoubtedly
intended the material to be available, (I'm one of them & at any rate
I did,) I include them here; if additional come in, I shall post
them.
operalala 1 day ago
In your 2011 edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/inde...
instead of providing a counterargument to a cited quotation, you
removed and replaced it.
>From the research that went into your book, you should have a wealth
of material to draw on to support your edits.
You need to cite your sources, just like a term paper, or not complain
when it gets handed back to you.
marka 7 hours ago in reply to operalala
Wait a minute. He claims to have cited primary sources - but
potentially erroneous secondary sources are the standard? By these
measures, Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin, etc., wouldn't have been
mentioned in their own time - but Biblical entries should get top
billing because they have been cited by many? Or Stalinist & Maoist
propaganda, because they have been cited many times?
And as his student says, if the prosecution spent numerous days at
trial, what, indeed, were they talking about? On its face, the Wiki
entry is clearly erroneous. A judge & jury found the evidence
'credible.' Who says it wasn't, and what is their evidence?
jwhab309 1 day ago
Thank you. I was not aware that quality research was unacceptable in
Wikipedia land. Very unfortunate indeed.
6 people liked this. Like Reply
See Kuhn, Thomas, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," with
Wikipedia playing the role of gatekeeper of hegemonic paradigms in the
place of scientific journals. Although "in the place of" may not be
correct -- perhaps "in addition to" is more accurate.
marka 6 hours ago
And now that I've gone to the primary sources cited in the Wiki article,
the author of this Chron article is correct - the citations do NOT
support the assertions in the Wiki. For example, the assertion that
'friendly fire' was the cause of police wounds, the very sources cited
say exactly the opposite - primary gunfire was from the crowd - also
noted in Wiki footnote 5. Yikes! Looks like Wiki 'editors' are
adhering to some ideological point of view, rather than actually read
the footnotes and follow the links. Operalala, who .... are you?
dgoodman 6 hours ago
Qualified experts prevail at Wikipedia when they rely on their
expertise, not their qualifications. A true expert will be able to
give the best arguments and know the best sources. If they also write
in a style understandable by non-specialists, and not condescend to
them, they will have their edits accepted. It is intended to be
different from the academic world; there is no respect at Wikipedia
for status, but only for evidence.
People however qualified or expert who have done original research
that is not yet accepted by their profession will not have their ideas
accepted at Wikipedia as the mainstream view, precisely because their
views are in fact not yet mainstream. How could they expect it, for
who at Wikipedia will be able to judge them? For that they need other
experts, and the world of peer-reviewed publication is the place for
them.
22067030 4 hours ago
Wikipedia is presumably not authoritative so much as a place to start.
The gatekeepers are often inexpert, and may be unaware of who the
experts are, and at any rate are not maintaining a citable source.
Wikipedia is the place to START research. That means, for example, if
there is a squabble over, say, climate change, then the squabble
itself is a topic that should have citations for people who want to
explore the squabble further. But Wikipedia's mission will be
undercut if experts - or people who imagine themselves to be experts -
start deleting stuff.
I would recommend that if this is a place where the conventional
wisdom is very wrong, you start a new page on the controversy itself,
with citations to as wide a variety of points of view as you can find,
and then link current pages to your new page.
My experience with Wikipedia is that you can tell if you are having an
impact by what you initiate, not what you inscribe in stone.
GLMcColm
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 5:12 AM, Tim Starling <tstarling(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> On 14/02/12 02:39, Achal Prabhala wrote:
>> The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia
>>
>> By Timothy Messer-Kruse
>>
> [...]
>> My improvement lasted five minutes before a Wiki-cop scolded me, "I
>> hope you will familiarize yourself with some of Wikipedia's policies,
>> such as verifiability and undue weight. If all historians save one say
>> that the sky was green in 1888, our policies require that we write
>> 'Most historians write that the sky was green, but one says the sky
>> was blue.' ... As individual editors, we're not in the business of
>> weighing claims, just reporting what reliable sources write."
>
> There are lots of places on Wikipedia where misconceptions have been
> summarily dealt with, respectable sources criticised and facts brought
> to light. Unfortunately, most academics don't have time for the edit
> wars, lengthy talk page discussions and RFCs that are sometimes
> required to overcome inertia.
>
> The text of Messer-Kruse's article doesn't show much understanding of
> this aspect of Wikipedia. But publishing it could be seen as canny. It
> should be effective at recruiting new editors and bringing more
> attention to the primary sources in question. The article is being
> actively edited along those lines.
>
> -- Tim Starling
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--
David Goodman
DGG at the enWP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGGhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--
Samuel Klein identi.ca:sj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266
Hello everyone-
This is my first post to the list. I am a PhD student at the Syracuse University School of Information Studies and I am developing a survey of Wikipedia contributors. I am hoping to get some insight about survey instruments from those of you that have done surveys of active editors.
I am open to any and all suggestions, be they free, pay, or requiring technical know how. Im just trying to get a sense of what my options are and where people have had success.
Thanks,
Gabriel
-------------------------------------------------
Gabriel Mugar
PhD Student, Information Science and Technology
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
www.buildingthecommons.org<http://www.buildingthecommons.org>
@gmugar
Dario,
I have replied at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:FAQ
Sincerely,
James Salsman
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Dario Taraborelli
<dtaraborelli(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> James,
>
> I replied here so other RCom members can chime in (rcom-l is publicly indexed but members-only)
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:FAQ
>
>> That seems to be for people who are unable to contact subjects without help.
>
> no, that's only part of the reason why we set up these instructions, we certainly want to support but also control who runs surveys (and how and what for)
>
>> I have looked through
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Notes_on_good_practices_on_Wikipedia_research
>> -- and as far as I can tell, that is the closest thing to a research
>> policy which exists. Do you think there was some way which I had not
>> adhered to it?
>
> that page unfortunately predates the creation of the RCom and the standard review procedure that we introduced for SR (I added a note to the talk page to mark it as obsolete for this reason). I appreciate that many people may have never heard about the new SR process and that's ok, you are not the first person to be blocked and invited to file a proposal for RCom review.
>
> Hope this helps, let me know if you have any question
>
> Dario
Dear Research-l Readers:
I am happy to announce the creation of a new listserv dedicated to
conversations about teaching with Wikipedia in higher education. The
name of the list is, appropriately enough, teaching-with-wikipedia. My
hope is that many users of this list will find the new list to be a
good way to support teaching with Wikipedia, as well as share
resources on researching Wikipedia pedagogy. I see the purpose of this
new list as related to wiki-research-l, but materially separate enough
to support a distinct conversation.
At the moment, there is no web interface, so the best method of
joining the list is to send an e-mail to
md(a)listserv.olemiss.edu
with the command
subscribe teaching-with-wikipedia
I would be happy to answer questions directly, and/or to see you there.
Yours,
Bob Cummings
--
Dr. Robert E. Cummings
Director, Center for Writing and Rhetoric
University of Mississippi
PO Box 1848
University, MS 38677-1848
(662) 915-1989
cummings(a)olemiss.edu
Lazy Virtues: http://www.vanderbiltuniversitypress.com/books/156/lazy-virtues
Wiki Writing: http://www.digitalculture.org/books/wiki-writing
COLT: http://colt.olemiss.edu/
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: James Salsman <jsalsman(a)gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 12:19 AM
Subject: Re: [RCom-l] Fwd: Actual Inactive Wikipedia administrator
survey (swalling at wikimedia.org)
To: rcom-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
On 12 February 2012, Steven Walling wrote:
> I did not receive any prior contact from Salsman about this before
> he began to send emails out.
That is blatantly untrue. See this IRC Office Hours log from
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours/Office_hours_2012-02-10
[09:41am] jsalsman okay, well I guess the first thing I need is to
know who in Zack's department will be point of contact for editor
recruitment efforts
[09:41am] Philippe jsalsman: that hasn't changed.
[09:41am] jsalsman who then?
[09:41am] StevenW jsalsman: you can talk to me and Maryana
[09:41am] jsalsman okay
...
[09:59am] jsalsman StevenW: I'm going to go ahead with the three-year
old inactive admins survey and send you access to the results
spreadsheet
On 13 February 2012, Philippe Beaudette wrote at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Heads…
> I was unaware of distribution mechanism and was certainly unaware that it would
> list a Foundation staff member as the contact.
That is also blatantly untrue, as is clear from the plain language of
the IRC log above, as well as
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Co…
On 14 February 2012, Dario Taraborelli wrote at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Inactive_administrators_survey#Lack_of_…
> This survey has not been reviewed by the Research Committee and
> as such it's in violation of our Research:Subject recruitment.
The page linked to there says, "Until an official policy is approved
by the Wikimedia Research Committee regarding subject recruitment,
individual requests can be submitted following these instructions."
The only Wikipedia Research Policy was announced at
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/2010-April/000955.html
and all of the provisions for subject recruitment approvals were
removed from that policy as described in
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/2012-February/001839.h…
Moreover, Steven Walling has stated twice so far that I continued
sending email surveys after he asked me to stop. That is easily
disproven. I stopped sending them four hours before he asked me to
stop.
As for the survey, it's been an enormous success, with several
formerly inactive admins returning to editing so far, and profoundly
helpful data for resolving issues surrounding admin and editor
attrition.
It is abundantly clear from
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Thread:Talk:Task_force/Community_Health/…
that this survey had been approved in September 2010 but never acted
on. I brought this up repeatedly in the years since and was ignored.
It took me three days to administer the survey.
The intentional lies about my conduct are *not* ethical, and I am owed
an apology.
Sincerely,
James Salsman