Re: [Wiki-research-l] Fwd: modern foundations of scientific consensus
The idea is to have a wiki-project with an entry for every cited source, author, and publication -- including critical secondary sources that exist only to comment on sources/authors/publications. Aggregate information about the reliability of these sources, where they are used, how they are discussed and linked together. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiTextrose http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikicite The wikitextrose proposal aims to gather data about these types of sources, and links between them. The wikicite proposal aims to organize citable statements on other wiki projects so that one can trace the origins of the idea expressed back to sources. SJ On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 5:51 AM, Jodi Schneider jodi.schnei...@deri.org wrote: Samuel, This is great! What's the idea for a WikiCite project? -Jodi On 20 Jun 2010, at 22:44, Samuel Klein wrote: Some motivation for a proper WikiCite project. --sj === Begin forwarded message == How citation distortions create unfounded authority: analysis of a citation network http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/339/jul20_3/b2680 Abstract: Objective -To understand belief in a specific scientific claim by studying the pattern of citations among papers stating it. Design - A complete citation network was constructed from all PubMed indexed English literature papers addressing the belief that \u03b2 amyloid, a protein accumulated in the brain in Alzheimer\u2019s disease, is produced by and injures skeletal muscle of patients with inclusion body myositis. Social network theory and graph theory were used to analyse this network. Main outcome measures - Citation bias, amplification, and invention, and their effects on determining authority. Results: The network contained 242 papers and 675 citations addressing the belief, with 220 553 citation paths supporting it. Unfounded authority was established by citation bias against papers that refuted or weakened the belief; amplification, the marked expansion of the belief system by papers presenting no data addressing it; and forms of invention such as the conversion of hypothesis into fact through citation alone. Extension of this network into text within grants funded by the National Institutes of Health and obtained through the Freedom of Information Act showed the same phenomena present and sometimes used to justify requests for funding. Conclusion: Citation is both an impartial scholarly method and a powerful form of social communication. Through distortions in its social use that include bias, amplification, and invention, citation can be used to generate information cascades resulting in unfounded authority of claims. Construction and analysis of a claim specific citation network may clarify the nature of a published belief system and expose distorted methods of social citation. -- Samuel Klein identi.ca:sj w:user:sj -- Samuel Klein identi.ca:sj w:user:sj ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l -- Samuel Klein identi.ca:sj w:user:sj ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Fwd: modern foundations of scientific consensus
Hi Samuel, That's really GREAT - we need that a lot for many sensitive topics. Sincerely, Pavlo On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 2:38 AM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: The idea is to have a wiki-project with an entry for every cited source, author, and publication -- including critical secondary sources that exist only to comment on sources/authors/publications. Aggregate information about the reliability of these sources, where they are used, how they are discussed and linked together. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiTextrose http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikicite The wikitextrose proposal aims to gather data about these types of sources, and links between them. The wikicite proposal aims to organize citable statements on other wiki projects so that one can trace the origins of the idea expressed back to sources. SJ On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 5:51 AM, Jodi Schneider jodi.schnei...@deri.org wrote: Samuel, This is great! What's the idea for a WikiCite project? -Jodi On 20 Jun 2010, at 22:44, Samuel Klein wrote: Some motivation for a proper WikiCite project. --sj === Begin forwarded message == How citation distortions create unfounded authority: analysis of a citation network http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/339/jul20_3/b2680 Abstract: Objective -To understand belief in a specific scientific claim by studying the pattern of citations among papers stating it. Design - A complete citation network was constructed from all PubMed indexed English literature papers addressing the belief that \u03b2 amyloid, a protein accumulated in the brain in Alzheimer\u2019s disease, is produced by and injures skeletal muscle of patients with inclusion body myositis. Social network theory and graph theory were used to analyse this network. Main outcome measures - Citation bias, amplification, and invention, and their effects on determining authority. Results: The network contained 242 papers and 675 citations addressing the belief, with 220 553 citation paths supporting it. Unfounded authority was established by citation bias against papers that refuted or weakened the belief; amplification, the marked expansion of the belief system by papers presenting no data addressing it; and forms of invention such as the conversion of hypothesis into fact through citation alone. Extension of this network into text within grants funded by the National Institutes of Health and obtained through the Freedom of Information Act showed the same phenomena present and sometimes used to justify requests for funding. Conclusion: Citation is both an impartial scholarly method and a powerful form of social communication. Through distortions in its social use that include bias, amplification, and invention, citation can be used to generate information cascades resulting in unfounded authority of claims. Construction and analysis of a claim specific citation network may clarify the nature of a published belief system and expose distorted methods of social citation. -- Samuel Klein identi.ca:sj w:user:sj -- Samuel Klein identi.ca:sj w:user:sj ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l -- Samuel Klein identi.ca:sj w:user:sj ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Fwd: modern foundations of scientific consensus
Hmmm, WikiData is this http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikidata + http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikidata ? (Google knows some external wikidatas http://www.wiki-data.com/ http://softwareas.com/wikidata-hackathon-wikidata-a-wiki-of-companies-data ...) On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 3:11 AM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Pavlo Shevelo pavlo.shev...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Samuel, That's really GREAT - we need that a lot for many sensitive topics. Yes. Also for reconciling differences between sources in different languages - which often carry their own quiet biases. The Foundation is now in a position to help support this sort of work with better contacts and brainstorming (than it was 5 years ago when these ideas were first developed), but someone still needs to design and run these projects... I don't think anyone is working on these ideas at the moment. (Erik, David Strauss, Stirling -- any recent thoughts on the matter? WikiData as a concept has been worked on in various ways, but I haven't seen any discussion of this particular implementation.) Sincerely, Pavlo On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 2:38 AM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Fwd: modern foundations of scientific consensus
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Pavlo Shevelo pavlo.shev...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Samuel,
That's really GREAT - we need that a lot for many sensitive topics.
Yes. Also for reconciling differences between sources in different
languages - which often carry their own quiet biases.
The Foundation is now in a position to help support this sort of work
with better contacts and brainstorming (than it was 5 years ago when
these ideas were first developed), but someone still needs to design
and run these projects... I don't think anyone is working on these
ideas at the moment.
(Erik, David Strauss, Stirling -- any recent thoughts on the matter?
WikiData as a concept has been worked on in various ways, but I
haven't seen any discussion of this particular implementation.)
I wouldn't go so far as to say nobody is working on these ideas. We
recently submitted a project proposal to the Foundation along the
lines of community documentation of scientific (and other) sources. In
the implementation we use in our lab all wiki articles that reference
an article are referring to the same citation on the same wiki page
(WatsonCrick53, etc.). The article that contains the citation
information is comprised of an infobox with metadata about the
citation garnered from various web apis and further arbitrary
documentation (we also show a list of other sources that this source
cites, and vice versa, etc..). We continue to hope that the Foundation
is willing to work with us to draw up a project proposal that works
for them, and we have also offered some programming time (I have
already put in hundreds of hours).
To recap: the fundamental basis of this general idea is a centralized
wiki that contains citation information that other wikis can then
reference using something like a {{cite}} template or a simple link.
The community can document the citation, the author, the book etc..
Users can use this wiki as their personal bibliography as well, as
collections of citations can be exported in arbitrary citation
formats. This general plan would allow community aggregation of
metadata and community documentation of sources along arbitrary
dimensions (quality, trust, reliability, etc.). The hope is that such
a resource would then expand on that wiki and across the projects into
summarizations of collections of sources (lit reviews) that make
navigating entire fields of literature easier and more reliable,
getting you out of the trap of not being aware of the global context
that a particular source sits in.
We continue to wait for Foundation feedback, but it has been
challenging to get more than sparse conversations. It doesn't seem as
though they have met to discuss the topic, which is unfortunate.
Brian Mingus
Graduate student
Computational Cognitive Neuroscience Lab
University of Colorado at Boulder
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Fwd: modern foundations of scientific consensus
Samuel Klein, 22/06/2010 02:11: The Foundation is now in a position to help support this sort of work with better contacts and brainstorming (than it was 5 years ago when these ideas were first developed), but someone still needs to design and run these projects... I don't think anyone is working on these ideas at the moment. There's also Sunir Shah: http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/BibDex Nemo ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
