Although the item below that I'm forwarding is not directly related to wiki research, it is of general interest to researchers in a wide variety of fields, and particularly to bibliometricians, of which I know there are a lot on this list.
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 12:56:43 -0400
From: Lee Giles<giles(a)ist.psu.edu>
To: AISWORLD Information Systems World Network<aisworld(a)lists.aisnet.org>
Subject: [AISWorld] Acknowledgement Search Engine - AckSeer
AckSeer is a beta automatic acknowledgment indexing search engine that
explores automatic identification, entity extraction and indexing of
acknowledgements from papers. Also, acknowledged entities are
extracted within the acknowledgment passages.
Currently, AckSeer indexes acknowledgments from more than 500,000 papers
in CiteSeerX. These acknowledgements contain more than 4 million
acknowledged entities with approximately 2 million of them unique.
Entity extraction is based on AlchemyAPI and OpenCalais. Acknowledged
entities are ranked by citation. Feedback is most welcomed.
by The International Conference on Informatics & Applications (ICIA2012)
The International Conference on Informatics & Applications (ICIA2012)
University Sultan Zainal Abidin, Kuala Terengganu, Malaysia
June 3-5, 2012
The proposed conference on the above theme will be held at University Sultan Zainal Abidin, Kuala Terengganu, Malaysia, From June 3-4, 2012 which aims to enable researchers build connections between different digital applications.
The conference welcomes papers on the following (but not limited to) research topics:
- Information Ethics
- Information Content Security
- Data Compression
- Cloud Computing
- Grid Computing
- Green Computing
- Access Controls
- Data Mining
- Social Search
- Computer Forensics
- Computer Security
- Peer-to-Peer Social Networks
- Information and Data Management
- Network Security
- Social Networks
- Real-Time Systems
- Internet Modeling
- Assurance of Service
- Image Processing
- Web Services Security
- Multimedia Computing
- Software Engineering
- Biometrics Technologies
- Wireless Communications
- Semantic Web, Ontologies
- Mobile Social Networks
- Distributed and Parallel Applications
- Embedded Systems and Software
- Critical Computing and Storage
- Critical Infrastructure Management
- Soft Computing Techniques
- Confidentiality Protection
- Mobile Networking, Mobility and Nomadicity
- Ubiquitous Computing, Services and Applications
- Forensics, Recognition Technologies and Applications
- Fuzzy and Neural Network Systems
- Signal Processing, Pattern Recognition and Applications
- User Interfaces,Visualization and Modeling
- Mobile, Ad Hoc and Sensor Network Management
- Web Services Architecture, Modeling and Design
- Quality of Service, Scalability and Performance
- Self-Organizing Networks and Networked Systems
- Computational Intelligence
- Data Management in Mobile Peer-to-Peer Networks
- Data Stream Processing in Mobile/Sensor Networks
- Indexing and Query Processing for Moving Objects
- User Interfaces and Usability Issues form Mobile Applications
- Sensor Networks and Social Sensing
- XML-Based Languages
- Cryptography and Data Protection
- Information Propagation on Social Networks
- Resource and Knowledge Discovery Using Social Networks
- Computer Crime Prevention and Detection
Researchers are encouraged to submit their work electronically. All papers will be fully refereed by a minimum of two specialized referees. Before final acceptance, all referees comments must be considered.
Submission Date : Apr. 5, 2012
Notification of acceptance : Apr. 15, 2012
Camera Ready submission : May 2, 2012
Registration : May 2, 2012
Conference dates : June 3-5, 2012
If you want to unsubscribe to this mail message from SDIWC, just follow this link http://dcmrf.net/Filemailer2/sdiwc-mailer/unsubscribe.php?id=6f57bf75fbe768…
Call for Participation - Competition on Quality Flaw Prediction in Wikipedia
The competition is part of the PAN 2012 Lab,
held in conjunction with the CLEF'12 conference in Roma, Italy.
In the previous PAN Labs, we have addressed quality issues in Wikipedia
form of vandalism. However, the majority of quality flaws is not caused
malicious intentions but stem from edits by inexperienced authors; examples
include poor writing style, unreferenced statements, or missing neutrality.
This year, we generalize the vandalism detection task and focus on the
prediction of particular quality flaws in Wikipedia articles.
We invite researchers and practitioners from all fields to participate.
Find out about all the details at http://pan.webis.de.
now open Registration
Mar 16, 2012 Training data release
May 18, 2012 Test data release
Jun 01, 2012 Run submission
Jun 22, 2012 Abstract submission
Jul 06, 2012 Notification
Aug 10, 2012 Notebook submission
Sep 17-20, 2012 Conference
Maik Anderka and Benno Stein
Webis @ Bauhaus-Universität Weimar, Germany
I am an undergraduate student at the University of California, Santa Barbara, conducting a senior honors thesis on users' motivations to contribute to Wikipedia. A more detailed description of the project can be read here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Motivations_to_Contribute_to_Wikipe…
My project's success is dependent on the valuable responses of Wikipedia contributors, which I am collecting through an online questionnaire. This brief questionnaire is completely anonymous and should take approximately 10 minutes to complete. If any of you are willing to complete this questionnaire, it can be accessed here: https://us1.us.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_8ixU9RkozemzC4s.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns.
Thank you in advance for your help!
I just discovered these WikiSym mailing lists. Looks like abandoned, but
there are some historical messages and much activity in the first months
Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod(a)mccme.ru> wrote:
> actually, I am pretty sure we did discuss the procedure which requires
> endorsement (we did not call it approval), either at the extraordinary
> meeting in December (related to the survey banner story) or in the RCom
> mailing list in the thread related to the same story....
The discussion in the RCom mailing list archives is fairly summarized by
"I rather suspect that there isn't consensus on this committee to restrict
researchers in their requesting community members to complete research
The subsequent etherpad minutes for the December 22, 2011 meeting,
discuss a "future subject recruitment policy" which the participants
state they do not understand how to craft.
> do not call other people liars unless you have very strong proofs....
Is there any way to interpret these two statements such that one of
them is not a lie?
"this is a policy that we're enforcing ... approval is required"
"due to the lack of a formal policy, the RCom has never been in a
position to grant any kind of "definitive approval" to recruit
The first of those two statements was made in an effort to accuse me
of misconduct. I stand by my statements, and I am certain that I have
It would be best if this issue were addressed as a mistake on the part
of those who have contradicted themselves.
I've been hesitant to get involved in this discussion because it seemed
like it was constantly on the verge of a flame war.
>From all I've seen, Audrey's proposal has been submitted for RCom review
correctly and her actions have not been disruptive.
RCom's documentation is lacking and somewhat convoluted, sure. We're all
volunteers here. We're also still working out the details. Any insights
into where that documentation is lacking is really helpful. Bold edits are
really helpful too.
It sounds like a formal, publicized requirement for RCom approval for
recruitment of individual participants should be discussed at the next RCom
meeting. I intend to make sure that happens. In the meantime, if someone
who is more excited about the issue would like to open an RFC (on
enwiki preferably, since meta isn't well read), I'd be very happy to
participate. I'd humbly offer my work on
an example of one possible approach.
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj(a)alk.edu.pl>wrote:
> Dear James,
> >> Instead of apologizing for your lie with which you attempted to impugn
> >> my integrity, you have been trying to cover it up with rhetoric.
> >> Is that behavior considered acceptable at the Wikimedia Foundation?
> as a bystander non-involved in this particular issue, I find your
> rhetoric quite inflammatory. When you repeatedly speak of lies and
> attempts to impugn your integrity, you really do not encourage people
> to help you (even if you're right, which I doubt from perusing the
> diffs and the discussion). Quite honestly, I'd be quite skeptical
> about clearing out a project of a researcher who in the process of
> negotiating help and access to limited resources (after all, there is
> only X number of projects that can be addressed to Wikipedians) so
> confrontational. No offense meant.
> dariusz a.k.a. "pundit"
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Instead of apologizing for your lie with which you attempted to impugn
>> my integrity, you have been trying to cover it up with rhetoric.
>> Is that behavior considered acceptable at the Wikimedia Foundation?
as a bystander non-involved in this particular issue, I find your
rhetoric quite inflammatory. When you repeatedly speak of lies and
attempts to impugn your integrity, you really do not encourage people
to help you (even if you're right, which I doubt from perusing the
diffs and the discussion). Quite honestly, I'd be quite skeptical
about clearing out a project of a researcher who in the process of
negotiating help and access to limited resources (after all, there is
only X number of projects that can be addressed to Wikipedians) so
confrontational. No offense meant.
dariusz a.k.a. "pundit"
Thanks for your message:
> James: I made the edit stating the research should get approval,
> and I did that by jumping into the game and just making the edit
> based on what I read in discussion boards. I did not consider it
> to be a new requirement....
For the benefit of those who haven't clicked on the link, you edited
[[meta:Research:Subject recruitment]] to read, at the top:
"If you are doing research which involves contacting Wikimedia project
editors or users then you must first notify the Wikimedia Research
Committee by describing your project. After your project gets approval
then you may begin."
How could that not be seen as a requirement? Do you think there is a
way to phrase it so that it would not be seen as a requirement?
Certainly this is not your fault. As you read, Dario Taraborelli
stated on February 15, "this is a policy that we're enforcing ...
approval is required"
And after you made that edit, Dario thanked you for it, saying, "I
appreciate the documentation on the review procedure" -- even though
the Research Committee had explicitly rejected an approval policy
requirement in September 2010, has not discussed it since, and neither
the community or the Foundation has ever endorsed any of the earlier
I would not be so upset about this if I hadn't been repeatedly accused
of misconduct in failing to obtain RCom approval.
Given the ease and lack of remorse with which Dr. Taraborelli, Mr.
Walling, and Mr. Beaudette have all repeatedly lied about me while
accusing me of misconduct, I have lost all confidence in the ability
of Foundation staff to adhere to basic ethics. I intend to continue to
raise this issue until it is addressed sufficiently.