wikireader doesn't say whether the data is just plain text or somehow
encrypted
in their format.
(I couldn't find it)
I don't need pictures, just plain wikipedia-text.
Best with the discussion-pages and all that.
Suitable for keyword-searches, maybe even from program or batch-file
Possibly of interest to Wikimedians: the U.S. Office of Science and
Technology Policy is requesting public comment on making federally
funded scientific research open access. The deadline is Jan. 7.
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "Charles W. Bailey, Jr." <cwbailey(a)digital-scholarship.com>
To: sts-l(a)ala.org
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 10:50:30 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: [STS-L] OSTP Request for Comment on Open Access to Federally
Funded Research
The Office of Science and Technology Policy is requesting
input regarding enhanced access to federally funded science
and technology research results, including the possibility
of open access to them. Comments can be e-mailed to
publicaccess(a)ostp.gov. The deadline for comments is January
7, 2010.
Here's an excerpt from the announcement
(http://bit.ly/5J1ZAp):
Input is welcome on any aspect of expanding public access to
peer reviewed publications arising from federal research.
Questions that individuals may wish to address include, but
are not limited to, the following (please respond to
questions individually):
1. How do authors, primary and secondary publishers,
libraries, universities, and the federal government
contribute to the development and dissemination of peer
reviewed papers arising from federal funds now, and how
might this change under a public access policy?
2. What characteristics of a public access policy would best
accommodate the needs and interests of authors, primary and
secondary publishers, libraries, universities, the federal
government, users of scientific literature, and the public?
3. Who are the users of peer-reviewed publications arising
from federal research? How do they access and use these
papers now, and how might they if these papers were more
accessible? Would others use these papers if they were more
accessible, and for what purpose?
4. How best could federal agencies enhance public access to
the peer-reviewed papers that arise from their research
funds? What measures could agencies use to gauge whether
there is increased return on federal investment gained by
expanded access?
5. What features does a public access policy need to have to
ensure compliance?
6. What version of the paper should be made public under a
public access policy (e.g., the author's peer reviewed
manuscript or the final published version)? What are the
relative advantages and disadvantages to different versions
of a scientific paper?
7. At what point in time should peer-reviewed papers be made
public via a public access policy relative to the date a
publisher releases the final version? Are there empirical
data to support an optimal length of time? Should the delay
period be the same or vary for levels of access (e.g., final
peer reviewed manuscript or final published article, access
under fair use versus alternative license), for federal
agencies and scientific disciplines?
8. How should peer-reviewed papers arising from federal
investment be made publicly available? In what format should
the data be submitted in order to make it easy to search,
find, and retrieve and to make it easy for others to link to
it? Are there existing digital standards for archiving and
interoperability to maximize public benefit? How are these
anticipated to change?
9. Access demands not only availability, but also meaningful
usability. How can the federal government make its
collections of peer- reviewed papers more useful to the
American public? By what metrics (e.g., number of articles
or visitors) should the Federal government measure success
of its public access collections? What are the best examples
of usability in the private sector (both domestic and
international)? And, what makes them exceptional? Should
those who access papers be given the opportunity to comment
or provide feedback?
In "The Obama Administration Wants OA for Federally-Funded
Research" (http://bit.ly/8fZ6Yh), Peter Suber says:
"This is big. We already have important momentum in Congress
for FRPAA. The question here is about separate action from
the White House. What OA policies should President Obama
direct funding agencies to adopt? This is the first major
opening to supplement legislative action with executive
action to advance public access to publicly-funded research.
It's also the first explicit sign that President Obama
supports the OA policy at the NIH and wants something
similar at other federal agencies."
In "Please Comment on Mandate Proposal by President Obama's
Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)"
(http://bit.ly/8OQUEF), Stevan Harnad provides his answers
to the OSTP's questions.
--
Best Regards,
Charles
Charles W. Bailey, Jr.
Publisher, Digital Scholarship
http://bit.ly/Z6HFx
can I have my reseach-paper as a wiki-page and wiki-editors help to
complete it,
write introduction,include references,improve graphics etc. -
while I just provide the data and results.
This way it can also be updated later and easily searched.
No publishing journal needed.
Here is a Q&A on all issues raised:
Q=question/R=Remark, A=answer
I put the more general questions on top.
Cheers, Erik Zachte
------------------------------------------
Q: Nikola Smolenski
Is it first time these reports are published?
A:
Yes, expect trend report to grow by accretion over time.
Other reports will be built from data for recent (6) months only
------------------------------------------
R: Andrew Gray
Andrew explains why distribution of page requests over countries favors
Spanish and Portuguese speaking countries:
'Some Wikipedias - the ones which insist on only-free-images - do not use
local uploads at all.'
A:
Thanks for explaining this unexpected distribution of page views on Commons,
I had no idea.
Spain 30.0%
USA 29.2%
Brazil 8.5%
Argentina 4.8%
Mexico 3.9%
Germany 3.3%
France 2.1%
Venezuela 1.9%
Chile 1.4%
Costa Rica 1.4%
Italy 1.4%
Uruguay 1.2%
Colombia 1.2%
Portugal 1.1%
------------------------------------------
R: Mark Williamson
Two main factors influencing choice of Wikipedia language:
# Fluency of the Internet-using population of a country in English.
# Quality of the native Wikipedia.
A:
Like you say. Many Scandinavians (and Dutch people I might add) probably
switch between English and local content all the time.
Personally I tend to look at English Wp first I many instances, because of
obviously richer content and larger depth.
------------------------------------------
Q: Ziko van Dijk
Why are 40 % of the visitors of ksh.WP (the dialect of Cologne) from Japan.
Why are 25 % of the visitors of eu.WP (Basque) from Poland?
Q: Andre Engels
I think bots are a likely explanation in the eu case
(unless Erik is using an algorithm that filters out bots)
A:
KSH used to be code for Kashmir. Still not Japan, but much closer than
Cologne.
Maybe Japanese mountaineers caused this spike ? (only half kidding)
As for eu.wp: Would Polish presume there also is a European Wikipedia? Just
a guess.
I do filter bots
------------------------------------------
R: Teun Spaans
For trends, I would expect a bar indicating upward or downward trend, not a
percentage bar.
A:
We can have both, a notion of importance and of change: I might color code
cells as I do already in e.g. [1]
This way large fluctuations really stand out. Let's first collect more
history.
[1] http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesPageViewsMonthly.htm
------------------------------------------
Q: Nikola Smolenski
Could we get this for other projects?
A:
This question is of course not unexpected.
One consideration is we need a certain sample size to make numbers
significant.
For other projects, with far less traffic, few country/language pairs would
be backed by sufficient data.
See also below on extending the current reports with more table rows.
------------------------------------------
Q: Nikola Smolenski:
Please include at Wikipedia Page Views Per Country - Overview [1] number of
Internet users from [2], and number of views per Internet user?
[1] http://tinyurl.com/yk43aq6
[2] http://tinyurl.com/yfv5bwn
A:
Done
------------------------------------------
R: Nikola Smolenski
It is obvious why Slovene Wikipedia is highly visited in Sierra Leone, and
Serbian in Suriname; URLs do matter :)
Although, I don't understand why so much. I would expect this distribution
by visitors, perhaps, but not by visits.
A:
Very interesting observation! So people from Sierra Leone try
'sl.wikipedia.org'.
Why people from Surinam go to 'sr.wikimedia.org' is only slightly less
obvious to me, but apparently is happens
For countries with just a few hits in the sampled log the distinction
between visitors and visits gets blurred.
------------------------------------------
R: Andre Engels
Ukrainian is not a small language by any means, yet Wikipedia visitors tend
to be drawn to the Russian Wikipedia instead.
A: Yes but article growth in Ukrainian Wikipedia has been speeding up in
recent months. [1]
[1] http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaUK.htm
------------------------------------------
R: Andre Engels
The Q3-Q4 comparison for most countries shows a shift from English to the
'vernacular'.
A:
Interesting analysis. Let's see if this is a consistent trend.
However the monthly page views per Wikipedia language for which we have 2
year history do not show very significant shift from large to smaller
wikipedia's.
See table 'Distribution of page views' at bottom of page of [1]: smaller
languages gain in share of page views, but very slowly.
[1] http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesPageViewsMonthly.htm
------------------------------------------
Q: Nikola Smolenski / Milos Rancic
At Wikipedia Page Views By Country - Breakdown [1] and Wikipedia Page Views
By Country - Trends [2] could you include more languages (ideally all
languages)?
Some of the numbers are going below 0.1% of population, but some of them are
not mentioned even they are larger than 0.5% of population.
[1] http://tinyurl.com/yhp3an7
[2] http://tinyurl.com/yzga2hm
A:
Yes on some reports I do include smaller percentages for the largest
Wikipedia's as those represent significant numbers of page views.
I used different (and arbitrary) thresholds per report. The arbitrariness
could change, but I want to plead for a notoriety threshold:
Here is a much more extended version of the breakdown report [1] (for this
discussion only)
It shows per country up to 50 Wikipedia's
An extra column shows the total number of records for this country/language
(for the 6 month period) on which the percentage is based.
As you can see for the smallest countries that number is so low that it is
no longer significant.
Let us say we cut off not at 1%, but at an (arbitrary) absolute threshold of
x logged records per country/language pair (per row).
Let us say we cut off at average 5 records per month. Everything below that
threshold in the test report is in dark red.
Personally I think this is still way too much detail for a general report.
Not because of Kb's but information overload.
[1] http://tinyurl.com/yjwoyre
~~ Open Knowledge Conference (OKCon) 2010: Call for Proposals ~~
* where: London, UK
* when: Saturday 24th April, 2010
* www: http://www.okfn.org/okcon/
* last year: http://www.okfn.org/okcon/2009/
* cfp: http://www.okfn.org/okcon/cfp/ (deadline: Jan 31st 2010)
* hashtag: #okcon2010
## Introduction
OKCon, now in its fifth year, is the interdisciplinary conference that
brings together individuals from across the open knowledge spectrum for
a day of presentations and workshops.
Open knowledge promises significant social and economic benefits in a
wide range of areas from governance to science, culture to technology.
Opening up access to content and data can radically increase access and
reuse, improving transparency, fostering innovation and increasing
societal welfare.
This is a time of great change. In addition to high profile initiatives
such as Wikipedia, OpenStreetMap and the Human Genome Project, there is
enormous growth among open knowledge projects and communities at all
levels. Moreover, in the last year, many governments across the world
have begun opening up their data.
And it doesn't stop there. In academia, open access to both publications
and data has been gathering momentum, and similar calls to open up
learning materials have been heard in education. Furthermore this
gathering flood of open data and content is the creator and driver of
massive technological change. How can we make this data available, how
can we connect it together, how can we use it collaborate and share our
work?
Join us to discuss all of this and more!
## Topics
We welcome proposals on any aspect of creating, publishing or reusing
content or data that is open in accordance with
http://opendefinition.org. Topics include but are not limited to:
### Technology
* Semantic Web and Linked Data in relation to open knowledge
* Platforms, methods and tools for creating, sharing and curating open
knowledge
* Light-weight, adaptive interaction models
* Open, decentralized social network applications
* Open geospatial data
### Law, Society and Democracy
* Open Licensing, Legal Tools and the Public Domain
* Open government data and content (public sector information)
* Open knowledge and international development
* Opening up access to the law
### Culture and Education
* Open educational tools and resources
* Business models for open content
* Incentive and rewards open-knowledge contributors
* Open textbooks
* Public domain digitisation initiatives
### Science and Research
* Opening up scientific data
* Supporting scientific workflows with open knowledge models
* Open models for scientific innovation, funding and publication
('open-access')
* Tools for analysing and visualizing open data
* Open knowledge in the humanities
## Submission Details
* Submission deadline: January 31st 2010
* Notification of acceptance: March 1st
* Camera-ready papers due: March 31st
We are accepting three types of submissions:
1. Full papers of 5-10 pages describing novel strategies, tools,
services or best-practices related to open knowledge.
2. Extended talk abstracts of 2-4 pages focusing on novel ideas,
ongoing work and upcoming research challenges.
3. Proposals for short talks and demonstrations
OKCon will implement an open submission and reviewing process. To make a
submission visit:
* http://www.okfn.org/okcon/submit/
Depending on the assessment of the submissions by the programme
committee and external reviewers, submissions will be accepted either as
full, short or lightning/poster presentations.
Proceedings of OKCON will be published at http://ceur-ws.org. If you
want your submission to be included in the conference proceedings you
have to prepare a manuscript of your submission according to the LNCS
Style.
### Programme Committee
* Sören Auer, AKSW/Universität Leipzig
* Christopher Corbin, UK Advisory Board on Public Sector Information
* Adnan Hadzi and Andrea Rota, Goldsmiths College, University of London
* Claudia Müller-Birn, Carnegie Mellon University
* Peter Murray-Rust, University of Cambridge
* Rufus Pollock, Open Knowledge Foundation and Emmanuel College,
University of Cambridge
* Joseph Seddon, Wikimedia UK
* John Wilbanks, Science Commons
--
Jonathan Gray
Community Coordinator
The Open Knowledge Foundation
http://www.okfn.org
Twitter/Identica: jwyg
Apologies for the cross posting.
Wikimedia UK, the
UK chapter, is organising an event called Britan Loves Wikipedia
Britain Loves Wikipedia is a cultural event bring organised in
partnership between Wikimedia UK, the Collections Trust and the MLA
(Museums, Libraries, Archives Partnership) starting on January 31 which
will encourage members of the public to visit certain participating
museums around the UK and photograph certain exhibits and make those
photos available for use on Wikipedia, and other projects, through
Wikimedia Commons. There will then be various prizes given out based on
the pictures people produce. For this event, we need a logo. While we
are getting quotes to have a professionally produced logo made, we
would much prefer one produced by a member of the community. The
community has produced excellent logos in the past and we are sure it
will be able to provide us with one that is just as professional
looking as what we could get by paying an enormous amount for it. If
you would like to have a go, the brief is as follows:
* The logo must include the words ‘Britain Loves Wikipedia’
* The logo does not necessarily need to feature the Wikipedia globe
* The logo must work in black and white and colour
* The logo must not be year-specific
Unfortunately we have very limited time so deadlines for this project are as follows:
* Expression of Interest (and, ideally, a first draft of your idea or ideas) -- 12:00 midday UTC Thursday, January 21 2010
* Final Logo -- 23:59 UTC Sunday, January 24 2010
We
understand that that doesn't give you much time, and we're sorry we
didn't organise this sooner. Hopefully a few people can knock something
up in that time! If you want to have a go, please let us know by
following the link.
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Britain_Loves_Wikipedia/Logo_submissions
Thanks!
Joseph Seddon
Wikimedia UK
_________________________________________________________________
Do you have a story that started on Hotmail? Tell us now
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/
What is the version of Kiwix are you install, does it the version with
the downloader composant ?
http://kiwix.org/index.php/Main_Page/archives/en
"Linterweb has stopped
his collaboration with Kiwix. As Linterweb did not publish the 0.7 [1]
source code, this version will not be recognized as a standard Kiwix
release and will neither be supported. If you want more information
concerning 0.7 [2] and the _live corpus_, please contact Linterweb."
It s
just because it s probably our last version of Kiwix ( V 0.7 ) that you
install.
>I want to congratulate you on your work.
>I share your
emotion. In the state of Nueva Esparta Venezuela kiwix we have
>installed
in 53 schools only in 2009. I think the work should go beyond
>wikimedia,
wikimedia's work should bring knowledge to those most in need. It
>is not
enough to have the information online, we activists we dirtied with
>mud to
the knees, we do long walks with a goal that is immensely rewarding.
I
>invite everyone to do the same.
>I believe and I'm sure would be nice
to forget the business problem for a
>moment, we join personal effort
rather than money alone.
>We must remember that poverty is a cultural
issue, poverty is not an
>economic problem. The economic problem is the
result of a cultural problem.
www.kiwix.org [3]
Links:
------
[1]
http://kiwix.org/index.php/0.7
[2] http://kiwix.org/index.php/0.7
[3]
http://www.kiwix.org/
Hi all,
This is a gentle reminder that the deadline for posting an initial
Wikimania 2011 bid is *Monday, February 8*, just three short weeks
away. Remember, you don't have to specify any details at this point;
you just have to list the city your team plans to bid with (you can
always withdraw later if it seems unpromising). Bid today if you plan
to! Details:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2011/Bids
regards,
-- Phoebe
--
* I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
<at> gmail.com *
