Also some coverage here in the Economist:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2014/09/science-web
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 3:32 AM, Samuel Klein wrote:
> Has this been considered? It seems to apply to us in many ways.
>
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/course-reddit-imgur-named-research-institute-de
identify
(semi-)automated revisions?
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
wrote:
> Brian Keegan, 18/05/2014 18:10:
>
> Is there a way to retrieve a canonical list of bots on enwiki or
>> elsewhere?
>>
>
> A Bots.csv list exists. https://meta.
How does one cite emails in ACM proceedings format? :)
On Sunday, May 18, 2014, R.Stuart Geiger wrote:
> Tsk tsk tsk, Brian. When the revolution comes, bot discriminators will get
> no mercy. :-)
>
> But seriously, my tl;dr: instead of asking if an account is or isn't a
> bot, ask if a set of ed
Is there a way to retrieve a canonical list of bots on enwiki or elsewhere?
I'm interested in omitting automated revisions (sorry Stuart!) for the
purposes of building co-authorship networks.
Grabbing everything under 'Category:All Wikipedia bots' excludes some major
ones like SmackBot, Cydebot, V
Check out Michael Kummer's paper that looks at a similar topic ("contagion"
in pageviews among linked articles) from an econometrics perspective:
"Spillovers in Networks of User Generated Content – Evidence from 23
Natural Experiments on Wikipedia"
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_i
THE 8TH INTERNATIONAL AAAI CONFERENCE ON WEBLOGS AND SOCIAL MEDIA (ICWSM-14)
SPONSORED BY THE ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
* Abstracts Due: January 15, 2014 (by 11:59 pm PST)
* Full Papers Due: January 22, 2014 (by 11:59 pm PST)
* Acceptance Notification: March 10, 20
quot;big"
approaches? I remain convinced that organizing wiki-scholars to edit
special issues, perhaps even incorporating wiki-like processes into the
review processes themselves to the extent editorial boards are open to it,
will be far more fruitful use of scarce academic time and interest.
I keep coming back to this same question Aaron's raised as well. Wiki is
obviously the glue holding everything thematically as well as logistically
together in the proposals I've seen here-to-for, but it seems
nigh-impossible to assemble an editorial board that is simultaneously open
and qualified
Have you all considered whether the costs of bootstrapping up a set of
editors and authors, playing the impact factor game, and articulating a
mission that is broad enough to include computer scientists and historians
warrant the benefits of having yet another outlet to publish wiki research?
The b
There's a good amount of research
Jullien 2012 has an excellent (although by no means exhaustive) lit review
of extant Wikipedia research including many network analysis papers:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2053597
Welser, et al. 2011 use network analysis approaches to ident
Joe Reagle's "Good Faith Collaboration" is an excellent alternative.
On Sep 5, 2012 4:37 AM, "Hrafn H Malmquist" wrote:
> Good day everyone
>
> My name is Hrafn Malmquist, I am an Icelandic student of library and
> information science at the University of Iceland, writing a master's thesis
> on t
g to the logs it was fully protected for a while due
> to IP vandalism. However the edit history only shows it going to semi
> protection, but there were some moves which have complicated things
>
> ** **
>
> WSC****
>
> On 21 July 2012 22:46, Taha Yasseri wrote:
My preliminary analysis of (English) Wikipedia's response to the 2012
Aurora shootings. Data is available at the bottom:
http://www.brianckeegan.com/2012/07/2012-aurora-shootings/
--
Brian C. Keegan
Ph.D. Student - Media, Technology, & Society
School of Communication, Northwestern University
Sc
*8th International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration (WikiSym)
*August 27-29 -- Linz, Austria
Call for Participation: *Early Registration Deadline is July 29*
The International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration (WikiSym) is
the premier conference on open collaboration and related
To be clear, my rhetorical flourish was not a hostile reaction to the
academy itself (I am a dissertating PhD candidate after all) but to rather
to its members' patronizing attitudes as embodied by Richard's
mischaracterization of Piotr's point and institutional powers' model of
profiting from othe
"Anyone can try to publish a junk X single-handed and give it away free;
almost nobody does so. The software is there but the necessary expertise is
very expensive and takes decades to develop."
Similar words were also uttered by newspaper editors, encyclopedia
publishers, proprietary software dev
Calling all PhD students who study Wikis and open collaboration! The
deadline for the WikiSym 2012 doctoral symposium is Friday, April 27. As a
prior participant, this is a great venue to get feedback on your research
design, theories, and methods from some outstanding scholars while
networking wit
Great news for all you procrastinators out there. The deadline for WikiSym
2012 paper, notes, experience reports, panels, and workshops has been
EXTENDED from April 7 to April 13.
So if you were on the fence about submitting before, you now have an extra
6 days to get those API calls, regressions,
WikiSym 2012 – Call for Participation
http://www.wikisym.org/2012/01/17/wikisym-2012-call-for-participation/
WIKISYM 2012 CALL FOR PARTICIPATION
———
8th International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration
August 27-29, 2012 | Linz, Austria
The International Symposium on Wikis and Open Col
19 matches
Mail list logo
