On 17 April 2018 at 09:39, David Cuenca Tudela <dacuetu(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Additionally I think it would be interesting to have
some research done on
which references are DISPLAYED or CLICKED the most on several Wikipedias.
We know already which sources are cited the most, but on which sources do
users hover their mouse the most? Can we also identify which statements are
involved?
Absolutely not. Leave that kind of spying to advertising companies and
three letter agencies. We have standards.
Finally I believe it would be that a tool to assess
the
openness
Look for
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Open_access
/accessibility of the sources of any given article
could be really
interesting.
Would turn into an argument over definitions. For example is the
Mabinogion accessible? Public domain, copies can be found on various
websites but I don't speak welsh. Limiting it to English gets to the
next problem. Is this accessible:
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2014/11/aa21621-13/aa21621-13.h…
Its in English but I don't have a degree in physics.
Where there are more obvious limits it gets more complicated. You may
be tempted to lump all paywalls together is it really fair to lump
something that costs €1 for total access in with something that
charges $40 for one article. Does the currency it charges in make a
difference?
Books too have their fun aspects. Try automating judging the relative
accessibility of Birmingham's Electric Dustcarts and 7000 years of
jewelry.
--
geni