"It's the oldest temptation. Not gold or the power it can buy, not love, not
even the deep, drumming fires of lust: What we coveted first was knowledge."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Lee_Carrell
"Haunt Me Still"
Chapter 1
Line 1
I think I've asked this before, but I'm raising it again as I've
noticed templates being used again within articles to allowed finer
control over specific parts of article content. This practice of using
templates within articles for the actual text of articles is something
I think should be discouraged because it messes up page histories and
makes it difficult to work out who edited what on a page.
The question I have is whether it is possible for old page versions to
display warnings that if templates were on the page, that the content
from that part of the page comes from current templates, rather than
showing what was originally there when the page was published.
Currently there is a warning on top of old page versions that says
"This is an old revision of this page, as edited by XXX at YYYY. It
may differ significantly from the current revision." But that doesn't
go far enough, IMO. There needs to be a warning included there that
images and templates may display as red-links if subsequently deleted,
or may display content different from what was originally there if
later updated, or may display something completely unrelated (if a
template is deleted and recreated or re-coded, or the image
overwritten with a new image).
Does anyone know which mediawiki page produces that warning, so I can
suggest changing it?
Carcharoth
An interesting survey by an Italian researcher.
Bye.
E.T.
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>
>Object: A survey about some sociological issues related to copyright
>in the digital age
>
>By this message I would like to introduce a survey that I recently
>created in order to go more in depth with the study of some
>sociological issues on the topic "Copyright in the digital age:
>attitudes, social perception and level of awareness".
>
>The questionnaire takes approximately 15 minutes to complete; it is
>online and completely anonymous (we do not ask your name and we do not
>record your IP address; so please relax and answer sincerly to the
>questions).
>
>The results of this research will be included in my Ph.D. thesis and
>made available with an open access/copyleft approach. Each person's
>attendance is important in order to accomplish my research, so I hope
>that you will be able to dedicate the time to answer the survey. It
>would also be very useful and appreciated if you could share this
>announcement with your friends and collegues.
>
>HERE IS THE WEBPAGE FOR THE SURVEY: http://www.aliprandi.org/en/survey
>
>Thanks.
>Simone Aliprandi – Ph.D. candidate at Centro Qua_SI
>of Bicocca University of Milan
[Apologies for cross-posting; this same e-mail is being sent to wikipedia-l, WikiEN-l and foundation-l]
Hi everyone,
We are a research group conducting a systematic literature review on Wikipedia-related peer-reviewed academic studies published in the English language. (Although there are many excellent studies in other languages, we unfortunately do not have the resources to systematically review these at any kind of acceptable scholarly level. Also, our study is about Wikipedia only, not about other Wikimedia Foundation projects. However, we do include studies about other language Wikipedias, as long as the studies are published in English.) We have completed a search using many major databases of scholarly research. We've posted separate messages to wiki-research-l related to this literature review.
We have identified over 2,100 peer-reviewed studies that have "wikipedia", "wikipedian", or "wikipedians" in their title, abstract or keywords. As this number of studies is far too large for conducting a review synthesis, we have decided to focus only on peer-reviewed journal publications and doctoral theses; we identified 638 such studies. In addition, we identified around 1,500 peer-reviewed conference articles.
We hope that our review would provide useful insights for both wikipedians and researchers. (Although we know that most Wikipedia researchers are also wikipedians, we define wikipedian or "Wikipedia practitioner" here as someone involved in the Wikipedia project who is not also a scholarly researcher.) In particular, here is a list of some of the research questions we are investigating in our review that are particularly pertinent to wikipedians (you can check wiki-research-l for the full set of research questions):
1. What high-quality research has been conducted with Wikipedia as a major topic or data source? As mentioned in the introductory e-mail, we have already identified over 2,100 studies, though we will only analyze 638 of them in depth. We will group the articles by field of study.
2. What research questions have been asked by various sources, both academic scholarly and practitioner? We want to know both the subjects that the existing research has covered, and also catalogue key questions that practitioners would like to be answered, whether or not academic research has broached these questions. Also, we categorize the research questions based on their purposes.
6. What conclusions have been made from existing research? That is, what questions from RQ2 have been answered, and what are these answers?
7. What questions from RQ2 are left unanswered? (These present directions for future research.)
Regarding our RQ2, on the research questions that have been asked, we want to identify not only the research questions that we extract from the articles, but also what questions are of interest that have not been studied. For this, we have identified a few banks of Wikipedia-related research questions.
We are most of all interested in questions that wikipedians are asking, other than what researchers are asking. There is an old list of research questions or goals at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Research_Goals; these questions are about Wikimedia Foundation projects in general, though Wikipedia is of course included. Could you please review this list and update that page directly with any additional questions? Alternately, you could reply us directly, and we could update the list.
Another bank of questions we have identified is more directed towards academics and researchers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikidemia#Research_Quest…. We have asked the wiki-research-l subscribers to update that list. We will draw from both lists for our bank of research questions.
Thanks for your help.
Chitu Okoli, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada
(http://chitu.okoli.org/professional/open-content/wikipedia-and-open-content…)
Arto Lanamäki, University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway
Mohamad Mehdi, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada
Mostafa Mesgari, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada
Can anyone reading and who knows how the ITN section of the Main Page
works consider giving the Main Page errors process a prod to get
things moving?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors
I posted there this morning about how the blurb on the Japan
earthquake and tsunami is increasingly outdated, and there has been
little response so far. Someone else has also posted something about
the nuclear situation, so that may need consideration as well. ITN
isn't meant to be a news ticker, but neither is it meant to get left
behind as news stories develop (always a problem when you have a
developing story where things will have changed a few days later).
FWIW, those who administer the WP:ERRORS page may not have seen this
section on the Main Page talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#Comment_on_wording_for_In_the_n…
It is better not to use exact figures in the Main Page blurb. Exact
figures are better left for the article itself.
Carcharoth
Dear Members,
I am a PhD student in a reputed university. My Research is on blog classification using Wikipedia Categories.As for my experiment, I use 12 main categories of Wikipedia.I want to identify " which particular article belongs to which main 12 categories?".So I wrote a program to collect the subcategories of each article and classify based on 12 categories offline.
I have downloaded already wiki-dump which consists of around 3 million article titles.My program takes this 3 million article titles and goes to online Wikipedia website and fetch the subcategories.Our university network administrators are worried that, Wikipedia would consider as DDOS attack and could block our IP address, if my program functions.In order to get permission from Wikipedia, I was searching allover. I could able to find wikien-l members can help me.Could you please suggest me, whom to contact, what is the procedure to get approval for our IP address to do the process or other suggestions
Eagerly waiting for a positive reply
Thanks and RegardsRamesh
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Valerie Aurora <valerie(a)adainitiative.org>
Date: 10 March 2011 02:13
Subject: [Foundation-l] Take the Ada Initiative Census of women in
open technology and culture
To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Today we started the Ada Initiative Census of women in open technology
and culture:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/adacensus2011-email
The survey (intended for both women and men) asks two broad sets of
questions: What open projects are you working on, and what is your
opinion of how women are treated in your project and in the open
community in general? The goal of the census is to periodically "take
the temperature" of women in the open technology and culture
community, so we can know what areas to work on and whether the Ada
Initiative is making a difference for women in the community.
The survey takes only 5 minutes to do. Take the census now! The
census closes on March 29th, 2011.
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/adacensus2011-email
Want to spread the word? Check out the census page for ideas and draft text:
http://adainitiative.org/projects/census/
Please especially post this on women in open source, open data, and
other open "stuff" mailing lists, blogs, and other forums!
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l