Wiki-research-l

wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org

8 participants
2988 discussions

Upcoming research newsletter (March 2016): new papers open for review
by Mohammed Sadat 26 Mar '16

26 Mar '16

Hi everybody, We’re preparing for the March 2016 research newsletter and looking for contributors. Please take a look at: https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/WRN201603 and add your name next to any paper you are interested in covering. Our target publication date is Wednesday March 30 UTC although actual publication might happen several days later. As usual, short notes and one-paragraph reviews are most welcome. Highlights from this month: • Advances in Information Retrieval • Candidate Searching and Key Coreference Resolution for Wikification • Developing an annotator for Latin texts using Wikipedia • "Did i say something wrong?" A word-level analysis of Wikipedia articles for deletion discussions • Gender Biases in Cyberspace: A Two-Stage Model, the New Arena of Wikipedia and Other Websites • Improving Information Literacy Skills through Learning To Use and Edit Wikipedia: A Chemistry Perspective • Motivational determinants of participation trajectories in Wikipedia • Open Content, Linus’ Law, and Neutral Point of View • Teaching with Wikipedia in a 21st-century classroom: Perceptions of Wikipedia and its educational benefits • Wikidata as a semantic framework for the Gene Wiki initiative • Wikipedia in the anti-SOPA protests as a case study of direct, deliberative democracy in cyberspace • *CSCW 2016 Conference proceedings • *Wiki Workshop 2016 proceedings If you have any question about the format or process feel free to get in touch off-list. Masssly, Tilman Bayer and Dario Taraborelli [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter

1 0

SEMANTiCS 2016, Leipzig, Sep 12-15, 2nd Call for Research & Innovation Papers
by Sebastian Hellmann 24 Mar '16

24 Mar '16

Apologies for cross-posting 2nd Call for Research & Innovation Papers SEMANTiCS 2016 - The Linked Data Conference Transfer // Engineering // Community 12th International Conference on Semantic Systems Leipzig, Germany September 12 -15, 2016 http://2016.semantics.cc Important Dates (Research & Innovation) * Abstract Submission Deadline: April 14, 2016 (11:59 pm, Hawaii time) * Paper Submission Deadline: April 21, 2016 (11:59 pm, Hawaii time) * Notification of Acceptance: May 26, 2016 (11:59 pm, Hawaii time) * Camera-Ready Paper: June 16, 2016 (11:59 pm, Hawaii time) Submissions via Easychair: https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=semantics2016research As in the previous years, SEMANTiCS’16 proceedings are expected to be published by ACM ICP. The annual SEMANTiCS conference is the meeting place for professionals who make semantic computing work, who understand its benefits and encounter its limitations. Every year, SEMANTiCS attracts information managers, IT-architects, software engineers and researchers from organisations ranging from NPOs, through public administrations to the largest companies in the world. Attendees learn from industry experts and top researchers about emerging trends and topics in the fields of semantic software, enterprise data, linked data & open data strategies, methodologies in knowledge modelling and text & data analytics. The SEMANTiCS community is highly diverse; attendees have responsibilities in interlinking areas like knowledge management, technical documentation, e-commerce, big data analytics, enterprise search, document management, business intelligence and enterprise vocabulary management. The success of last year’s conference in Vienna with more than 280 attendees from 22 countries proves that SEMANTiCS 2016 will continue a long tradition of bringing together colleagues from around the world. There will be presentations on industry implementations, use case prototypes, best practices, panels, papers and posters to discuss semantic systems in birds-of-a-feather sessions as well as informal settings. SEMANTICS addresses problems common among information managers, software engineers, IT-architects and various specialist departments working to develop, implement and/or evaluate semantic software systems. The SEMANTiCS program is a rich mix of technical talks, panel discussions of important topics and presentations by people who make things work - just like you. In addition, attendees can network with experts in a variety of fields. These relationships provide great value to organisations as they encounter subtle technical issues in any stage of implementation. The expertise gained by SEMANTiCS attendees has a long-term impact on their careers and organisations. These factors make SEMANTiCS for our community the major industry related event across Europe. #SEMANTiCS 2016 will especially welcome submissions for the following hot topics: * Data Quality Management * Data Science (Data Mining, Machine Learning, Network Analytics) * Semantics on the Web, Linked (Open) Data & schema.org * Corporate Knowledge Graphs * Knowledge Integration and Language Technologies * Economics of Data, Data Services and Data Ecosystems Following the success of previous years, the ‘horizontals’ (research) and ‘verticals’ (industries) below are of interest for the conference: Horizontals * Enterprise Linked Data & Data Integration * Knowledge Discovery & Intelligent Search * Business Models, Governance & Data Strategies * Big Data & Text Analytics * Data Portals & Knowledge Visualization * Semantic Information Management * Document Management & Content Management * Terminology, Thesaurus & Ontology Management * Smart Connectivity, Networking & Interlinking * Smart Data & Semantics in IoT * Semantics for IT Safety & Security * Semantic Rules, Policies & Licensing * Community, Social & Societal Aspects Verticals * Industry & Engineering * Life Sciences & Health Care * Public Administration * Galleries, Libraries, Archives & Museums (GLAM) * Education & eLearning * Media & Data Journalism * Publishing, Marketing & Advertising * Tourism & Recreation * Financial & Insurance Industry * Telecommunication & Mobile Services * Sustainable Development: Climate, Water, Air, Ecology * Energy, Smart Homes & Smart Grids * Food, Agriculture & Farming * Safety, Security & Privacy * Transport, Environment & Geospatial #Research / Innovation Papers The Research & Innovation track at SEMANTiCS welcomes the submission of 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. The Research & Innovation track at SEMANTiCS is a single-blind review process (author names are visible to reviewers, reviewers stay anonymous). The submitted abstract and the topics are leveraged to find adequate reviewers for submitted papers. Please write an email to semantics2016researchtrack(a)easychair.org, if you have any questions. Papers should follow the ACM ICPS guidelines for formatting and must not exceed 8 pages in length for full papers and 4 pages for short papers, including references and optional appendices. The layout templates can be found here: http://www.acm.org/sigs/publications/proceedings-templates All accepted full papers and short papers will be published in the digital library of the ACM ICP Series. Research & Innovation papers should be submitted through EasyChair at: https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=semantics2016research. Papers must be submitted in PDF (Adobe's Portable Document Format) format. Other formats will not be accepted. For the camera-ready version, the source files (Latex, WordPerfect, Word) will also be needed. Important Dates (Research & Innovation) * Abstract Submission Deadline: April 14, 2016 (11:59 pm, Hawaii time) * Paper Submission Deadline: April 21, 2016 (11:59 pm, Hawaii time) * Notification of Acceptance: May 26, 2016 (11:59 pm, Hawaii time) * Camera-Ready Paper: June 16, 2016 (11:59 pm, Hawaii time) Research and Innovation Chairs: * Anna Fensel, University of Innsbruck * Amrapali Zaveri, Stanford University Contact email address: semantics2016researchtrack(a)easychair.org Research and Innovation Deputy Chairs: * Bernhard Haslhofer, Austrian Institute of Technology * Artem Revenko, Semantic Web Company Conference Chairs: * Sebastian Hellmann, AKSW/KILT, InfAI, Leipzig University * Tassilo Pellegrini, UAS St. Pölten Senior Program Committee: * Paul Buitelaar, Insight - National University of Ireland, Galway * Oscar Corcho, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid * Claudia D'Amato, University of Bari * Brian Davis, DERI NUIG * Victor de Boer, VU Amsterdam * Christian Dirschl, Wolters Kluwer Germany * Michel Dumontier, Stanford University * Agata Filipowska, Department of Information Systems, Poznan University of Economics * Bernhard Haslhofer, AIT-Austrian Institute of Technology * Sebastian Hellmann, AKSW/KILT, InfAI, Leipzig University * Andreas Hotho, University of Wuerzburg * Jose Emilio Labra Gayo, Universidad de Oviedo * Peter Mika, Yahoo! Research * Axel-Cyrille Ngonga Ngomo, University of Leipzig * Josiane Xavier Parreira, Siemens AG Österreich * Heiko Paulheim, University of Mannheim * Tassilo Pellegrini, University of Applied Sciences St. Pölten * Marta Sabou, Vienna University of Technology * Harald Sack, Hasso-Plattner-Institute for IT Systems Engineering, University of Potsdam * Pierre-Yves Vandenbussche, Fujitsu * Ruben Verborgh, Ghent University - iMinds * Maria Esther Vidal, Universidad Simon Bolivar, Dept. Computer Science

1 0

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Analytics] [Data Release] [Data Deprecation] [Analytics Dumps]
by Dan Andreescu 23 Mar '16

23 Mar '16

On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dan Andreescu, 23/03/2016 15:58: > >> >> *Clean-up:* Analytics data on dumps was crammed into /other with >> unrelated datasets. We made a new page to receive current and future >> datasets [3] and linked to it from /other and /. Please let us know if >> anything there looks confusing or opaque and I'll be happy to clarify. >> > > I assume the old URLs will redirect to the new ones, right? > Good question, we didn't change any old URLs actually, so if you're trying to get to other/pagecounts-ez, other/pagecounts-raw and all that, they're all still there, just linked-to from /analytics. We did it this way because we figured people had scripts that depended on those URLs. We thought about moving and symlinking but it's probably unlikely that we'll ever be able to delete the other/** location. So mainly we just have a new page where we can do a better job of focusing on the analytics datasets.

1 0

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Data Release] [Data Deprecation] [Analytics Dumps]
by Dan Andreescu 23 Mar '16

23 Mar '16

cc-ing our friends in research and wikitech (sorry I forgot initially) We're happy to announce a few improvements to Analytics data releases on > dumps.wikimedia.org: > > * We are releasing a new dataset, an estimate of Unique Devices accessing > our projects [1] > * We are officially making available a better Pageviews dataset [2] > * We are deprecating two older pageview statistics datasets > * We moved Analytics data from /other to /analytics [3] > > Details follow: > > > *Unique Devices:* Since 2009, the Wikimedia Foundation used comScore to > report data about unique web visitors. In January 2016, however, we > decided to stop reporting comScore numbers [4] because of certain > limitations in the methodology, these limitations translated into > misreported mobile usage. We are now ready to replace comscore numbers with > the Unique Devices Dataset [5][1]. While unique devices does not equal > unique visitors, it is a good proxy for that metric, meaning that a major > increase in the number of unique devices is likely to come from an increase > in distinct users. We understand that counting uniques raises fairly big > privacy concerns and we use a very private conscious way to count unique > devices, it does not include any cookie by which your browser history can > be tracked [6]. > > We invite you to explore this new dataset and hope it’s helpful for the > Wikimedia community in better understanding our projects. This data can > help measurethe reach of wikimedia projects on the web. > > *Pageviews:* This [2] is the best quality data available for counting the > number of pageviews our projects receive at the article and project level. > We've upgraded from pagecounts-raw to pagecounts-all-sites, and now to > pageviews, in order to filter out more spider traffic and measure something > closer to what we think is a real user viewing content. A short history > might be useful: > > * pagecounts-raw: was maintained by Domas Mituzas originally and taken > over by the analytics team. It was and still is the most used dataset, > though it has some majore problems. It does not count access to the mobile > site, it does not filter out spider or bot traffic, and it suffers from > unknown loss due to logging infrastructure limitations. > * pagecounts-all-sites: uses the same pageview definition as > pagecounts-raw, and so also does not filter out spider or bot traffic. But > it does include access to mobile and zero sites, and is built on a more > reliable logging infrastructure. > * pagecounts-ez: is derived from the best data available at the time. > So until December 2015, it was based on pagecounts-raw and > pagecounts-all-sites, and now it's based on pageviews. This dataset is > great because it compresses very large files without losing any > information, still providing hourly page and project level statistics. > > So the new dataset, pageviews, is what's behind our pageview API and is > now available in static files for bulk download back to May 2015. But the > multiple ways to download pageview data is confusing for consumers, so > we're keeping only pageviews and pagecounts-ez and deprecating the other > two. If you'd like to read more about the current pageview definition, > details are on the research page [7]. > > *Deprecating:* We are deprecating the pagecounts-raw and > pagecounts-all-sites datasets in May 2016 (discussion here: > https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T130656 ). This data suffers from many > artifacts, lack of mobile data, and/or infrastructure problems, and so is > not comparable to the new way we track pageviews. It will remain here > because we have historical data that may be useful, but it will not be > maintained or updated beyond May 2016. > > *Clean-up:* Analytics data on dumps was crammed into /other with > unrelated datasets. We made a new page to receive current and future > datasets [3] and linked to it from /other and /. Please let us know if > anything there looks confusing or opaque and I'll be happy to clarify. > > > [1] http://dumps.wikimedia.org/other/unique_devices > [2] http://dumps.wikimedia.org/other/pageviews > [3] http://dumps.wikimedia.org/analytics/ > [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/ComScore/Announcement > [5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Unique_Devices > [6] > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Unique_Devices#How_do_we_count_uni… > [7] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Page_view >

1 0

algorithm accountability
by Toby Negrin 22 Mar '16

22 Mar '16

An interesting study as AI becomes more mainstream: http://towcenter.org/exposing-algorithms-nicar2016/ -Toby

3 2

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki-research-l Digest, Vol 127, Issue 18
by Alex Druk 20 Mar '16

20 Mar '16

Requests with "Special:Random" / total number of requests for each project. On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 11:08 PM, < wiki-research-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org> wrote: > Send Wiki-research-l mailing list submissions to > wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > wiki-research-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > wiki-research-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Wiki-research-l digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Wiki-research-l Digest, Vol 127, Issue 15 (Felix J. Scholz) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2016 18:08:11 -0400 > From: "Felix J. Scholz" <felixjacobscholz(a)gmail.com> > To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities > <wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki-research-l Digest, Vol 127, Issue > 15 > Message-ID: > < > CADBcukYu1kDZLLvTOKJRQAo6SO017mXMnceWYxPDUJmnm--sLA(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Most likely, it is the absolute number of random searches in billions > On Mar 19, 2016 6:01 PM, "Andrew Gray" <andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk> wrote: > > > Hi Alex, > > > > Stupid question - is that "3.36% of all random-article searches were on > > Latvian WP", or "3.36% of all searches (pageviews?) on the Latvian WP > were > > through random-article"? > > > > Andrew. > > > > On 19 March 2016 at 21:34, Alex Druk <alex.druk(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Mark J. Nelson writes: > >> >Specifically, a small slice of content, mainly English Wikipedia > >> >articles on pop culture, recent news events, and U.S. politics, > >> >contribute a disproportionate share of views. (A weekly top-25 list for > >> >enwiki is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Top_25_Report ). > So > >> >if you're measuring aggregate numbers, you're measuring mainly that > >> >specific type of content. If the goal is really simply to reach as many > >> >people as possible, have high page views and unique visitor counts, > >> >etc., then this subset of articles is really the only important part of > >> >Wikimedia's mission--- articles on, say, mathematics, don't contribute > >> >anything to moving the needle if that's the metric. > >> > >> One should also consider the fact that significant number of users use > >> Wikipedia as entertainment. As an example of such use is random > searches. On > >> all Wikipedia sites number of random searches in 2014 exceeded 1 > billion. > >> Here is a simple graph illustrated this: > >> [image: Inline image 1] > >> > >> ~~Alex > >> > >> > >> On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 1:00 PM, < > >> wiki-research-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org> wrote: > >> > >>> Send Wiki-research-l mailing list submissions to > >>> wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > >>> > >>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > >>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > >>> wiki-research-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org > >>> > >>> You can reach the person managing the list at > >>> wiki-research-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org > >>> > >>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > >>> than "Re: Contents of Wiki-research-l digest..." > >>> > >>> > >>> Today's Topics: > >>> > >>> 1. Re: unique visitors (Mark J. Nelson) > >>> > >>> > >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > >>> Message: 1 > >>> Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 20:57:45 +0100 > >>> From: Mark J. Nelson <mjn(a)anadrome.org> > >>> To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities > >>> <wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > >>> Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] unique visitors > >>> Message-ID: <87zitvzhhi.fsf(a)mjn.anadrome.org> > >>> Content-Type: text/plain > >>> > >>> phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki(a)gmail.com> writes: > >>> > >>> > I wonder if there's a qualitative project somewhere in here about > >>> > *types* of use -- e.g. if I'm using WP on my phone & my work pc is > >>> > that really equivalent use? Perhaps I am using them for different > >>> > kinds of information seeking, e.g. looking up terms related to work > vs > >>> > looking up info on movie stars -- does this different kind of use > >>> > matter for how we construct and present information, or count "use"? > >>> > >>> Beyond the issue of devices, I think this is important in part because > >>> the raw traffic counts (and reach numbers and similar) paint a very > >>> specific story of what Wikimedia is doing and is successful at. (And > >>> what you measure influences what you tend to optimize for.) > >>> > >>> Specifically, a small slice of content, mainly English Wikipedia > >>> articles on pop culture, recent news events, and U.S. politics, > >>> contribute a disproportionate share of views. (A weekly top-25 list for > >>> enwiki is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Top_25_Report ). > So > >>> if you're measuring aggregate numbers, you're measuring mainly that > >>> specific type of content. If the goal is really simply to reach as many > >>> people as possible, have high page views and unique visitor counts, > >>> etc., then this subset of articles is really the only important part of > >>> Wikimedia's mission--- articles on, say, mathematics, don't contribute > >>> anything to moving the needle if that's the metric. > >>> > >>> -Mark > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ------------------------------ > >>> > >>> Subject: Digest Footer > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Wiki-research-l mailing list > >>> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > >>> > >>> > >>> ------------------------------ > >>> > >>> End of Wiki-research-l Digest, Vol 127, Issue 15 > >>> ************************************************ > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Thank you. > >> > >> Alex Druk > >> alex.druk(a)gmail.com > >> (775) 237-8550 Google voice > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Wiki-research-l mailing list > >> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > - Andrew Gray > > andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wiki-research-l mailing list > > Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > > > > >

2 1

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki-research-l Digest, Vol 127, Issue 15
by Alex Druk 19 Mar '16

19 Mar '16

Mark J. Nelson writes: >Specifically, a small slice of content, mainly English Wikipedia >articles on pop culture, recent news events, and U.S. politics, >contribute a disproportionate share of views. (A weekly top-25 list for >enwiki is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Top_25_Report ). So >if you're measuring aggregate numbers, you're measuring mainly that >specific type of content. If the goal is really simply to reach as many >people as possible, have high page views and unique visitor counts, >etc., then this subset of articles is really the only important part of >Wikimedia's mission--- articles on, say, mathematics, don't contribute >anything to moving the needle if that's the metric. One should also consider the fact that significant number of users use Wikipedia as entertainment. As an example of such use is random searches. On all Wikipedia sites number of random searches in 2014 exceeded 1 billion. Here is a simple graph illustrated this: [image: Inline image 1] ~~Alex On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 1:00 PM, < wiki-research-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org> wrote: > Send Wiki-research-l mailing list submissions to > wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > wiki-research-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > wiki-research-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Wiki-research-l digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: unique visitors (Mark J. Nelson) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 20:57:45 +0100 > From: Mark J. Nelson <mjn(a)anadrome.org> > To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities > <wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] unique visitors > Message-ID: <87zitvzhhi.fsf(a)mjn.anadrome.org> > Content-Type: text/plain > > phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki(a)gmail.com> writes: > > > I wonder if there's a qualitative project somewhere in here about > > *types* of use -- e.g. if I'm using WP on my phone & my work pc is > > that really equivalent use? Perhaps I am using them for different > > kinds of information seeking, e.g. looking up terms related to work vs > > looking up info on movie stars -- does this different kind of use > > matter for how we construct and present information, or count "use"? > > Beyond the issue of devices, I think this is important in part because > the raw traffic counts (and reach numbers and similar) paint a very > specific story of what Wikimedia is doing and is successful at. (And > what you measure influences what you tend to optimize for.) > > Specifically, a small slice of content, mainly English Wikipedia > articles on pop culture, recent news events, and U.S. politics, > contribute a disproportionate share of views. (A weekly top-25 list for > enwiki is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Top_25_Report ). So > if you're measuring aggregate numbers, you're measuring mainly that > specific type of content. If the goal is really simply to reach as many > people as possible, have high page views and unique visitor counts, > etc., then this subset of articles is really the only important part of > Wikimedia's mission--- articles on, say, mathematics, don't contribute > anything to moving the needle if that's the metric. > > -Mark > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Wiki-research-l Digest, Vol 127, Issue 15 > ************************************************ > -- Thank you. Alex Druk alex.druk(a)gmail.com (775) 237-8550 Google voice

3 2

citing female academics
by Heather Ford 19 Mar '16

19 Mar '16

There's an interesting discussion going on right now on the Association of Internet Researchers mailing list about the citing of women (and women of colour) in academia that I thought might be interesting. The comments are also really (as Gabriella Coleman noted) 'lively' so they're worth a read too. I'd be curious to learn more about how we as a Wikipedia research community fare here too... https://merylalper.com/2016/02/22/please-read-the-article-please-cite-women… Best, Heather. Dr Heather Ford University Academic Fellow School of Media and Communications <http://media.leeds.ac.uk/>, The University of Leeds w: hblog.org / EthnographyMatters.net <http://ethnographymatters.net/> / t: @hfordsa <http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa>

9 26

WWW 2016 Wiki Workshop: accepted papers
by Dario Taraborelli 19 Mar '16

19 Mar '16

We're thrilled to announce the list of papers accepted at the WWW 2016 Wiki Workshop <http://snap.stanford.edu/wikiworkshop2016/>. You can follow @wikiworkshop16 <https://twitter.com/wikiworkshop16> for updates. Dario (on behalf of the organizers) Johanna Geiß and Michael Gertz With a Little Help from my Neighbors: Person Name Linking Using the Wikipedia Social Network Ramine Tinati, Markus Luczak-Roesch and Wendy Hall Finding Structure in Wikipedia Edit Activity: An Information Cascade Approach Paolo Boldi and Corrado Monti Cleansing Wikipedia Categories using Centrality Thomas Steiner Wikipedia Tools for Google Spreadsheets Yu Suzuki and Satoshi Nakamura Assessing the Quality of Wikipedia Editors through Crowdsourcing Vikrant Yadav and Sandeep Kumar Learning Web Queries For Retrieval of Relevant Information About an Entity in a Wikipedia Category Haggai Roitman, Shay Hummel, Ella Rabinovich, Benjamine Sznajder, Noam Slonim and Ehud Aharoni On the Retrieval of Wikipedia Articles Containing Claims on Controversial Topics Tanushyam Chattopadhyay, Santa Maiti and Arindam Pal Automatic Discovery of Emerging Trends using Cluster Name Synthesis on User Consumption Data Freddy Brasileiro, João Paulo A. Almeida, Victorio A. Carvalho and Giancarlo Guizzardi Applying a Multi-Level Modeling Theory to Assess Taxonomic Hierarchies in Wikidata *Dario Taraborelli *Head of Research, Wikimedia Foundation wikimediafoundation.org • nitens.org • @readermeter <http://twitter.com/readermeter>

1 0

unique visitors
by phoebe ayers 18 Mar '16

18 Mar '16

Hi all, Can someone help me with my failing memory and remind me what the current state of affairs is re: unique visitors -- we're not counting them anymore? We are counting them but not via comscore? Something else? Just putting together a talk and wanted the latest numbers. thanks, -- Phoebe -- * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers <at> gmail.com *

6 10

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

Wiki-research-l