Re: [Wiki-research-l] Fwd: modern foundations of scientific consensus
Hello Brian,
Brian Mingus writes:
> 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.
You are right to call that out -- and your proofs of concept for
documenting scientific sources are the best I know of, in the world of
open code.
And I believe AcaWiki is working with you now, yes? I thought of your
project more as summary and literature-review, rather than a global
WikiCite... something that might one day delegate its citations,
primarily of scientific topics, to a universal WikiCite. (Correct me
if I am wrong.) And I don't think anyone is working on a
"wikitextrose" equivalent.
> 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.
I like that formulation a lot.
> 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).
Which reminds me: we need to fix our project-proposal process.
This sounds like a promising project. Did you ever post a version of
the above to strategy.wikimedia.org? I thought that you were going to
work with AcaWiki in the short term and see what you had in common.
David, the Open Library plugin you mention also sounds excellent for
solving the larger "every citable source in the world" challenge.
--
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
Maybe this can be a good discussion to have in person at WikiSym, in the open space or perhaps the Wikipedia Research Summit on the 7th! http://wikisym.org/ws2010/Wikipedia+Research+Summit Even if you're not attending, feel free to add to that page... I'd like to follow on from last year's very productive discussion. -- phoebe On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Jodi Schneider wrote: > Thanks Samuel, > I think it would be great to have more citation tracking in Wikimedia > projects! The projects you mention were new to me, but they're quite related > to my own research in argumentation, and coming out of the library > community, for me, citation analysis is second nature! > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiTextrose > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikicite > > Have you run into AcaWiki? It's conceived of as a "Wikipedia for academic > research" and uses CC-BY and Semantic MediaWiki: > http://www.acawiki.org/ > AcaWiki focuses more on summarizing articles than on linking their citations > together.There is a BibTeX importer -- which could be adapted for use in > other MediaWiki installations (one of the desired parts of that project). > It's a useful place to gather summaries for generals and other reading-based > exams--for instance here's Benjamin Mako Hill's collection: > http://acawiki.org/User:Benjamin_Mako_Hill/Generals > I used to work with AcaWiki, and would love any feedback on the site > (offlist). > It was interesting to hear of BibDex! > http://www.bibdex.com/ > I'll definitely take a closer look. > One possibility would be to draw on existing projects which are already > documenting sources, particularly in confusing and problematic areas, where > "good source" is not obvious or well-understood. > For instance, on English Wikipedia, the WikiProject video games has a > guideline on sources, documenting particular websites that are and are not > reliable: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources > WikiProject Japan has documented offline resources recommended for the > project: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Japan/Reference_library > These projects are far from alone, as a search will show: > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&redirs=1&search=sources+wikiproject > If you want to get Wikicite and WikiTextrose going again -- or others are > proposed as Brian mentions -- I'd like to be involved. > > ...recently submitted a project proposal to the Foundation along the > lines of community documentation of scientific (and other) sources. > > So, let me know how I can contribute. > :) -Jodi > On 22 Jun 2010, at 00:38, Samuel Klein 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 > 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
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Fwd: modern foundations of scientific consensus
Thanks Samuel, I think it would be great to have more citation tracking in Wikimedia projects! The projects you mention were new to me, but they're quite related to my own research in argumentation, and coming out of the library community, for me, citation analysis is second nature! > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiTextrose > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikicite Have you run into AcaWiki? It's conceived of as a "Wikipedia for academic research" and uses CC-BY and Semantic MediaWiki: http://www.acawiki.org/ AcaWiki focuses more on summarizing articles than on linking their citations together.There is a BibTeX importer -- which could be adapted for use in other MediaWiki installations (one of the desired parts of that project). It's a useful place to gather summaries for generals and other reading-based exams--for instance here's Benjamin Mako Hill's collection: http://acawiki.org/User:Benjamin_Mako_Hill/Generals I used to work with AcaWiki, and would love any feedback on the site (offlist). It was interesting to hear of BibDex! http://www.bibdex.com/ I'll definitely take a closer look. One possibility would be to draw on existing projects which are already documenting sources, particularly in confusing and problematic areas, where "good source" is not obvious or well-understood. For instance, on English Wikipedia, the WikiProject video games has a guideline on sources, documenting particular websites that are and are not reliable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources WikiProject Japan has documented offline resources recommended for the project: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Japan/Reference_library These projects are far from alone, as a search will show: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&redirs=1&search=sources+wikiproject If you want to get Wikicite and WikiTextrose going again -- or others are proposed as Brian mentions -- I'd like to be involved. > ...recently submitted a project proposal to the Foundation along the > lines of community documentation of scientific (and other) sources. So, let me know how I can contribute. :) -Jodi On 22 Jun 2010, at 00:38, Samuel Klein 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 > 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 th
