Hi all,
We gave the option of accepting nominations in more languages some
more thought. I want to be very honest: I don't have a good solution
to accommodate more languages in this cycle. We considered the option
of allowing/encouraging nominations in other languages, and not doing
the broader search we do in English in those languages. However, even
this option is not really guaranteed to work because we consider
"scholarly publications" which can be papers of a few pages or books
that can be hundreds of pages. We cannot guarantee that we can
translate the scholarly publication (independent of its length)
in-time for the review.
Given the above, my suggestion to you is that if you know of a
scholarly publication that is in another language than English and you
think we should consider it, still nominate it. We will consider it,
even if I can't guarantee that we review it.
I'm sorry that I am not able to offer a better solution for this
cycle. We will continue thinking about this point for the future
cycles.
Best,
Leila
On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 12:46 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
<galder158(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Leila,
> I have read it, that's why I'm confused.
> ________________________________
> From: Leila Zia <lzia(a)wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 9:40 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Cc: wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>; Discussion list for the Wikidata project. <wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: [Wiki-research-l] Re: The Wikimedia Foundation Research Award of the Year - Call for Nominations
>
> Hi Galder,
>
> Please see below.
>
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 12:26 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
> <galder158(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks, Leila, for answering the question raised.
>
> Anytime.
>
> > I'm a bit confused with this, I supposed that the Wikimedia Foundation Research Award was an initiative from the Research team of the WMF (https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research), but I read in your answer that "WikiResearch is primarily in English and about research published in English". I understand that the main working language of the WMF is English, as this mailing list is, but I would assume that an Award promoted by the WMF should be multilingual.
>
> Sorry. Let me clarify. What I was referring to when I used
> WikiResearch in my email was the WikiResearch twitter account:
> https://twitter.com/WikiResearch . I did not intend to refer to the
> WMF Research team or Wikimedia Research community. And to repeat: this
> is one source we use to find research done on the Wikimedia projects.
> There are other sources as I mentioned in my response.
>
> > Me, as a Basque Wikimedians User Group member, I promote Wikimedia activities in Basque language, because that is our goal. But the WMF is not the English Wikimedians User Group, as far as I understand. Our designated lingua franca may be English, but the WMF can't exclude research that is not made in this language from an Award. I would understand if the (non-existing) English Wikimedians User Group created the "EWUG Research in English Award of the Year", but is not the case.
>
> I understand and acknowledge your point about inclusion. I hope some
> of the points I shared about our existing process in my other email
> can help you find possible solutions we can consider doing. :) On my
> end: I have a todo to come back to you all.
>
> Best,
> Leila
>
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Galder
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Leila Zia <lzia(a)wikimedia.org>
> > Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:04 PM
> > To: wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Cc: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>; Discussion list for the Wikidata project. <wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: [Wiki-research-l] Re: The Wikimedia Foundation Research Award of the Year - Call for Nominations
> >
> > Hi all, Thank you for your feedback. I take your comments as a sign of
> > genuine care and I'm happy to engage and learn with you how we can do
> > better. (Note: I'm responding to all lists, though some of the
> > feedback has been sent only to wikimedia-l.)
> >
> > * Galder, Gereon, Xavier, Gnangarra, and Andy: thank you for your feedback.
> >
> > * Andy, I'll respond to your comment first. We do not require the work
> > to be published under a free license for us to consider it for the
> > award. However, if the work is shortlisted, we reach out to the
> > authors, tell them that it's shortlisted, and it can be considered for
> > the award if the work is at least made publicly available. At that
> > point, we also encourage the authors to publish under a free license
> > and share with them a few ways they may be able to (even if the work
> > is published somewhere already with restrictions). The issue of
> > licenses is on top of our mind and we actively look for ways to push
> > for more Wikimedia research work to be published under free licenses.
> >
> > * I am going to share with you some of my thoughts, and a possible
> > improvement we can make in the process.
> >
> > ** Let's try to keep things simple to be able to improve things
> > together. This is not a case of "WMF did x". The idea of the award was
> > created in the Research team, and both last year and this year, we've
> > been grateful to have the support of researchers outside of WMF for
> > it. (Aaron Shaw (Northwestern University), and Benjamin Mako Hill (U.
> > of Washington)). I take full responsibility for the execution of the
> > award and I can take your feedback and see where we can improve the
> > process. :)
> >
> > ** In order to be able to improve the process, I should share more
> > details about how we do the search for the publications first. We have
> > multiple sources for searching for research published in a given year:
> > 1. The nomination process we shared on this thread.
> > 2. Research publications shared in WikiResearch twitter account.
> > 3. External research search engines and repositories for different
> > fields: we use scholar.google.com, dblp.org and more.
> >
> > To give you a sense of the distribution of scholarly publications we
> > identified last year from each of the above sources: 11 nominations
> > and 170+ research publications through the twitter account and
> > external searches. The award chairs (2 people; this year it is going
> > to be Mako and I) reviewed all identified publications. We discussed
> > every publication at varying depth depending on the result of our
> > initial reviews.
> >
> > ** Knowing the process, there are at least a few ways I think the
> > process must be improved. I'm sure now that you see more you can
> > critique even more. :) I proactively share with you some of them here:
> > ::* I need to have an easychair account to nominate. That can/must
> > change (but to what? we want these nominations to be private, and we
> > need a way to be able to process them efficiently because we're only 2
> > people. We are considering openreview.net for the future years because
> > they're open source; but they still have other limitations. For this
> > year, easychair it is.).
> > ::* We need more people on the committee: both for workload sharing,
> > and also including more perspectives. (This is /a lot/ to ask of
> > researchers. I'm grateful that Mako and Aaron have supported us in the
> > past.)
> > ::* We need other non-English sources to source community research.
> > (WikiResearch is primarily in English and about research published in
> > English.)
> > ::* The shared language of reviewers is assumed to be English. If we
> > are going to at scale consider other languages, then we need a way
> > that this group of people can converse on academic topics with one
> > another without having to share a language.
> >
> > ** I also understand the reality of the resources available to me and
> > our team. I understand the importance of working on multiple fronts
> > with regards to the research community (Wikimedia Research Funds, Wiki
> > Workshop, global research competitions, research showcases, monthly
> > office hours, talks and presentations, formal collaborations, and
> > more). I believe in the importance of motivation (and we have seen a
> > very good momentum around the award idea from last year's run). We
> > need to do many things, with very limited resources; Our values and
> > ideals are important and we have to attempt to hold them all as we
> > make decisions. In practice, sometimes we can't meet all the ambitions
> > we have. We need to make trade-offs. What is important is to be aware,
> > to listen, to try to improve, and to be honest.
> >
> > I will leave you with the above and I commit to talk with Mako to
> > consider ways to open up the process for more languages to be included
> > (in 2021 or in 2022+; I can't promise changes for the 2021 process.).
> > One of us will write back here with what we decide to do.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Leila
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 5:42 AM Andy Mabbett <andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 7 Jan 2022 at 19:48, Leila Zia <lzia(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > =Eligibility criteria=
> > >
> > > > * The publication must be available in English.
> > >
> > > I echo others' concerns about this.
> > >
> > > I'm equally concerned that, while WMF regard being in English as
> > > essential for one of their awards, they do not regard the use of an
> > > open licence as a requirement.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Andy Mabbett
> > > @pigsonthewing
> > > https://pigsonthewing.org.uk
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > To unsubscribe send an email to wiki-research-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
> > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
> > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Hi Galder,
Please see below.
On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 12:26 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
<galder158(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Leila, for answering the question raised.
Anytime.
> I'm a bit confused with this, I supposed that the Wikimedia Foundation Research Award was an initiative from the Research team of the WMF (https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research), but I read in your answer that "WikiResearch is primarily in English and about research published in English". I understand that the main working language of the WMF is English, as this mailing list is, but I would assume that an Award promoted by the WMF should be multilingual.
Sorry. Let me clarify. What I was referring to when I used
WikiResearch in my email was the WikiResearch twitter account:
https://twitter.com/WikiResearch . I did not intend to refer to the
WMF Research team or Wikimedia Research community. And to repeat: this
is one source we use to find research done on the Wikimedia projects.
There are other sources as I mentioned in my response.
> Me, as a Basque Wikimedians User Group member, I promote Wikimedia activities in Basque language, because that is our goal. But the WMF is not the English Wikimedians User Group, as far as I understand. Our designated lingua franca may be English, but the WMF can't exclude research that is not made in this language from an Award. I would understand if the (non-existing) English Wikimedians User Group created the "EWUG Research in English Award of the Year", but is not the case.
I understand and acknowledge your point about inclusion. I hope some
of the points I shared about our existing process in my other email
can help you find possible solutions we can consider doing. :) On my
end: I have a todo to come back to you all.
Best,
Leila
> Cheers,
>
> Galder
>
> ________________________________
> From: Leila Zia <lzia(a)wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:04 PM
> To: wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Cc: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>; Discussion list for the Wikidata project. <wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: [Wiki-research-l] Re: The Wikimedia Foundation Research Award of the Year - Call for Nominations
>
> Hi all, Thank you for your feedback. I take your comments as a sign of
> genuine care and I'm happy to engage and learn with you how we can do
> better. (Note: I'm responding to all lists, though some of the
> feedback has been sent only to wikimedia-l.)
>
> * Galder, Gereon, Xavier, Gnangarra, and Andy: thank you for your feedback.
>
> * Andy, I'll respond to your comment first. We do not require the work
> to be published under a free license for us to consider it for the
> award. However, if the work is shortlisted, we reach out to the
> authors, tell them that it's shortlisted, and it can be considered for
> the award if the work is at least made publicly available. At that
> point, we also encourage the authors to publish under a free license
> and share with them a few ways they may be able to (even if the work
> is published somewhere already with restrictions). The issue of
> licenses is on top of our mind and we actively look for ways to push
> for more Wikimedia research work to be published under free licenses.
>
> * I am going to share with you some of my thoughts, and a possible
> improvement we can make in the process.
>
> ** Let's try to keep things simple to be able to improve things
> together. This is not a case of "WMF did x". The idea of the award was
> created in the Research team, and both last year and this year, we've
> been grateful to have the support of researchers outside of WMF for
> it. (Aaron Shaw (Northwestern University), and Benjamin Mako Hill (U.
> of Washington)). I take full responsibility for the execution of the
> award and I can take your feedback and see where we can improve the
> process. :)
>
> ** In order to be able to improve the process, I should share more
> details about how we do the search for the publications first. We have
> multiple sources for searching for research published in a given year:
> 1. The nomination process we shared on this thread.
> 2. Research publications shared in WikiResearch twitter account.
> 3. External research search engines and repositories for different
> fields: we use scholar.google.com, dblp.org and more.
>
> To give you a sense of the distribution of scholarly publications we
> identified last year from each of the above sources: 11 nominations
> and 170+ research publications through the twitter account and
> external searches. The award chairs (2 people; this year it is going
> to be Mako and I) reviewed all identified publications. We discussed
> every publication at varying depth depending on the result of our
> initial reviews.
>
> ** Knowing the process, there are at least a few ways I think the
> process must be improved. I'm sure now that you see more you can
> critique even more. :) I proactively share with you some of them here:
> ::* I need to have an easychair account to nominate. That can/must
> change (but to what? we want these nominations to be private, and we
> need a way to be able to process them efficiently because we're only 2
> people. We are considering openreview.net for the future years because
> they're open source; but they still have other limitations. For this
> year, easychair it is.).
> ::* We need more people on the committee: both for workload sharing,
> and also including more perspectives. (This is /a lot/ to ask of
> researchers. I'm grateful that Mako and Aaron have supported us in the
> past.)
> ::* We need other non-English sources to source community research.
> (WikiResearch is primarily in English and about research published in
> English.)
> ::* The shared language of reviewers is assumed to be English. If we
> are going to at scale consider other languages, then we need a way
> that this group of people can converse on academic topics with one
> another without having to share a language.
>
> ** I also understand the reality of the resources available to me and
> our team. I understand the importance of working on multiple fronts
> with regards to the research community (Wikimedia Research Funds, Wiki
> Workshop, global research competitions, research showcases, monthly
> office hours, talks and presentations, formal collaborations, and
> more). I believe in the importance of motivation (and we have seen a
> very good momentum around the award idea from last year's run). We
> need to do many things, with very limited resources; Our values and
> ideals are important and we have to attempt to hold them all as we
> make decisions. In practice, sometimes we can't meet all the ambitions
> we have. We need to make trade-offs. What is important is to be aware,
> to listen, to try to improve, and to be honest.
>
> I will leave you with the above and I commit to talk with Mako to
> consider ways to open up the process for more languages to be included
> (in 2021 or in 2022+; I can't promise changes for the 2021 process.).
> One of us will write back here with what we decide to do.
>
> Thanks,
> Leila
>
> On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 5:42 AM Andy Mabbett <andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 7 Jan 2022 at 19:48, Leila Zia <lzia(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >
> > > =Eligibility criteria=
> >
> > > * The publication must be available in English.
> >
> > I echo others' concerns about this.
> >
> > I'm equally concerned that, while WMF regard being in English as
> > essential for one of their awards, they do not regard the use of an
> > open licence as a requirement.
> >
> > --
> > Andy Mabbett
> > @pigsonthewing
> > https://pigsonthewing.org.uk
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe send an email to wiki-research-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Hi all,
Join the Research Team at the Wikimedia Foundation [1] for their monthly
Office hours this Tuesday, 2022-01-11, at 12:00-13:00 UTC (4:00 PT / 7:00
ET / 13:00 CET). View your local time here
<https://zonestamp.toolforge.org/1641902452>. Please note the time change!
We are experimenting with our Office hours schedules to make our sessions
more globally welcoming.
To participate, join the video-call via this link [2]. There is no set
agenda - feel free to add your item to the list of topics in the etherpad
[3]. You are welcome to add questions / items to the etherpad in advance,
or when you arrive at the session. Even if you are unable to attend the
session, you can leave a question that we can address asynchronously. If
you do not have a specific agenda item, you are welcome to hang out and
enjoy the conversation. More detailed information (e.g. about how to
attend) can be found here [4].
Through these office hours, we aim to make ourselves more available to
answer research related questions that you as Wikimedia volunteer editors,
organizers, affiliates, staff, and researchers face in your projects and
initiatives. Here are some example cases we hope to be able to support you
with:
-
You have a specific research related question that you suspect you
should be able to answer with the publicly available data and you don’t
know how to find an answer for it, or you just need some more help with it.
For example, how can I compute the ratio of anonymous to registered editors
in my wiki?
-
You run into repetitive or very manual work as part of your Wikimedia
contributions and you wish to find out if there are ways to use machines to
improve your workflows. These types of conversations can sometimes be
harder to find an answer for during an office hour. However, discussing
them can help us understand your challenges better and we may find ways to
work with each other to support you in addressing it in the future.
-
You want to learn what the Research team at the Wikimedia Foundation
does and how we can potentially support you. Specifically for affiliates:
if you are interested in building relationships with the academic
institutions in your country, we would love to talk with you and learn
more. We have a series of programs that aim to expand the network of
Wikimedia researchers globally and we would love to collaborate with those
of you interested more closely in this space.
-
You want to talk with us about one of our existing programs [5].
Hope to see many of you,
Emily on behalf of the WMF Research Team
[1] https://research.wikimedia.org
[2] https://meet.jit.si/WMF-Research-Office-Hours
[3] https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/Research-Analytics-Office-hours
[4] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Office_hours
[5] https://research.wikimedia.org/projects.html
--
Emily Lescak (she / her)
Senior Research Community Officer
The Wikimedia Foundation
Hi!
I just published the first version of a Go package which provides
utilities for processing
Wikidata entities JSON dumps and Wikimedia Enterprise HTML dumps. It
processes them in parallel on multiple cores, so processing is rather
fast. I hope it will be useful to others, too.
https://gitlab.com/tozd/go/mediawiki
Any feedback is welcome.
Mitar
--
http://mitar.tnode.com/https://twitter.com/mitar_m
====
18th International Conference on Semantic Systems
Vienna, Austria
September 12 - 16, 2022
https://2022-eu.semantics.cc/
====
The Research and Innovation track at SEMANTiCS 2022 EU welcomes papers
on novel scientific research and/or innovations relevant to the topics
of the conference. Submissions must be original and must not have been
submitted for publication elsewhere. Papers must follow the guidelines
given in the author instructions, including references and optional
appendices. Each submission will be reviewed by several PC members who
will judge it based on its innovativeness, technical merits, and
effectiveness at solving real problems.
Proceedings of SEMANTiCS 2022 EU will be made available open access and
planned to be published with IOS Press.
= Topics of Interest =
* Topics of interest include, but are not limited to:
* Web Semantics & Linked (Open) Data
* Enterprise Knowledge Graphs, Graph Data Management, and Deep Semantics
* Machine Learning & Deep Learning Techniques
* Semantic Information Management & Knowledge Integration
* Terminology, Thesaurus & Ontology Management
* Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery
* IoT and Stream Processing
* Reasoning, Rules, and Policies
* Natural Language Processing
* Data Quality Management and Assurance
* Explainable Artificial Intelligence
* Semantics in Data Science
* Semantics in Blockchain environments
* Trust, Data Privacy, and Security with Semantic Technologies
* Economics of Data, Data Services, and Data Ecosystems
-------
* Special Sub-Topic: Digital Humanities and Cultural Heritage
* Special Sub-Topic: LegalTech
* Special Sub-Topic: Distributed and Decentralized Knowledge Graphs
= Important Dates =
* Abstract Submission Deadline: May 09, 2022 (11:59 pm, Hawaii time)
* Paper Submission Deadline: May 16, 2022 (11:59 pm, Hawaii time)
* Notification of Acceptance: June 20, 2022 (11:59 pm, Hawaii time)
* Camera-Ready Paper: July 04, 2022 (11:59 pm, Hawaii time)
Submission via Easychair on https://easychair.org/my/conference?conf=sem22#
= Author Guidelines and Submission =
* The Research and Innovation Track welcomes long and short papers. Long
papers should have a maximum length of 15 pages (including references)
and short papers of 6 pages (including references).
* Submissions should follow the guidelines of IOS Press. Details are
available here: https://www.iospress.com/book-article-instructions
* Abstract submission for all papers is a strict requirement.
* All papers and abstracts have to be submitted electronically via
Easychair: https://easychair.org/my/conference?conf=sem22#
* Submissions must be in English.
* Submissions are not anonymous.
* Accepted papers will be published in open access proceedings by IOS Press.
* At least one author of each accepted paper must register for the
conference and present the paper.
* The Research and Innovation Track will not accept papers that, at the
time of submission, are under review or have already been published in
or accepted for publication in a journal or another conference.
= Review and Evaluation Criteria =
Each submission will be reviewed by several PC members. The reviewing
process is single-blind. Papers submitted to this track will be
evaluated according to the following criteria:
* Appropriateness
* Originality, novelty, and innovativeness
* Impact of results
* Soundness of the evaluation
* Proper comparison to related work
* Clarity and quality of writing
* Reproducibility of results and resources
Check out additional submission opportunities at Semantics conference:
https://2022-eu.semantics.cc/cfp
We are looking forward to your contribution!