Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Wikimedia-l] 2012 Editor survey launched

[John Vandenberg]

Thanks Tilman. Good to see the offer is in the public FAQ.

I was on my phone at the time I saw it, and having some time on my hands I
tried to fill it in. I managed to screw up the survey software on the
languages selection by trying to select more than one, and then it wouldnt
let me pick any. I quit thinking I would get another chance...on my desktop.

I dont remember if the survey told me that I would only have one chance...

Do you know how many people have seen the banner vs how many have completed
it?

Is there a page which lists pros and cons of this approach?

I think the WMF should collect all the survey data they can. Maximum ROI
and all that.
You can use models to select a subset of the 2012 data that would be
comparable to the 2011 data.

John Vandenberg.
sent from Galaxy Note
On Nov 3, 2012 10:58 AM, "Tilman Bayer"  wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 6:05 PM, John Vandenberg  wrote:
> > Hi Tilman,
> >
> > Could you explain the logic behind the survey link not being static until
> > the user completes the survey or dismisses the notice?
> I guess you are referring to the fact that the survey invitation
> banner is designed to be shown only once to each user? This is
> explained in the Q&A for the survey:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_Editor_Survey_2012#Why_will_a_user_see_the_link_to_the_survey_only_once.3F_How.3F
> In short, it's intended to reduce bias towards more frequent editors.
> There are reasons for and against this setup, but it's one of the many
> things that we want to keep consistent with the last survey so as to
> be able to do longitudinal analysis, i.e. identify trends.
>
> (In case this is not what you meant, feel free to rephrase the
> question and I will try to reply again.)
>
> >
> > I appreciate that you're offering, via email, to give people the survey
> > link if they missed it, but that will influence who ends up your survey
> > population. Not everyone on your target population is subscribed to a
> list
> > whetr this offer has been made.
> I understand this concern from a theoretical standpoint, but
> considering the fact that only four people have requested such a link
> so far, the bias that this introduces is likely to be negligible. - If
> one goes down that road, one would need to worry much more about the
> effect of announcements and discussions about the survey on mailing
> lists and on Meta before it has completed, but this is a price we are
> happy to pay to involve the community and achieve transparence.
>
> >
> > John Vandenberg.
> > sent from Galaxy Note
> > On Oct 31, 2012 7:26 AM, "Tilman Bayer"  wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> we have just launched the Foundation's 2012 editor survey; with
> >> invitations to participate being shown to logged-in users on Wikipedia
> >> and Commons.
> >>
> >> A few quick facts about the survey (for more refer to
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_Editor_Survey_2012
> >> ):
> >>
> >> * This is the third survey of editors as envisaged in the Foundation's
> >> 2010-15 strategic plan "in order to take the pulse of the community
> >> and identify pressing issues or concerns", after the April 2011 and
> >> December 2011 surveys.
> >>
> >> * The first main purpose of this survey is to continue the work of the
> >> 2011 studies (conducted by Mani Pande and Ayush Khanna), with a focus
> >> on tracking changes since last year and identifying trends.
> >> Which is why many questions are being repeated from last time.
> >>
> >> * The second emphasis in this instance of the survey is to measure the
> >> satisfaction of the editing community with the work of the Wikimedia
> >> Foundation.
> >>
> >> * This is the first editor survey that includes a non-Wikipedia
> >> project (Commons, for the questions that are non Wikipedia-specific).
> >>
> >> * Thanks to everyone who commented on the draft questionnaire after we
> >> solicited feedback on this list and in and IRC office hour, as well as
> >> to those who commented about the last survey. We made several changes
> >> based on the feedback, and tried to reply to all concerns.
> >>
> >> * Also many thanks to all volunteer translators who reviewed or
> >> contributed translations; the questionnaire is available in 14
> >> languages (Italian, Polish and Portuguese will launch a bit later).
> >>
> >> * As with the previous two surveys, the results will be published in
> >> the following forms: A "topline" report detailing the percentage of
> >> responses for each question, a series of posts on
> >> https://blog.wikimedia.org analyzing the results, and a data set
> >> consisting of anonymized responses which others can use to do their
> >> own analyses. This time we will also aim to produce language-specific
> >> topline reports (an approach we already tested for Chinese with the
> >> data from the December 2011 survey).
> >>
> >> --
> >> Tilman Bayer
> >> Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
> >> Wikimedia Foundatio

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Wikimedia-l] 2012 Editor survey launched

[Kerry Raymond]

I'm confused. I'm a Wikipedia editor and I am not seeing this invitation to
the survey at akk?

Kerry


-Original Message-
From: wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Tilman
Bayer
Sent: Saturday, 3 November 2012 1:58 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Cc: wiki-research-l
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Wikimedia-l] 2012 Editor survey launched

Hi John,

On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 6:05 PM, John Vandenberg  wrote:
> Hi Tilman,
>
> Could you explain the logic behind the survey link not being static until
> the user completes the survey or dismisses the notice?
I guess you are referring to the fact that the survey invitation
banner is designed to be shown only once to each user? This is
explained in the Q&A for the survey:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_Editor_Survey_2012#Why_wi
ll_a_user_see_the_link_to_the_survey_only_once.3F_How.3F
In short, it's intended to reduce bias towards more frequent editors.
There are reasons for and against this setup, but it's one of the many
things that we want to keep consistent with the last survey so as to
be able to do longitudinal analysis, i.e. identify trends.

(In case this is not what you meant, feel free to rephrase the
question and I will try to reply again.)

>
> I appreciate that you're offering, via email, to give people the survey
> link if they missed it, but that will influence who ends up your survey
> population. Not everyone on your target population is subscribed to a list
> whetr this offer has been made.
I understand this concern from a theoretical standpoint, but
considering the fact that only four people have requested such a link
so far, the bias that this introduces is likely to be negligible. - If
one goes down that road, one would need to worry much more about the
effect of announcements and discussions about the survey on mailing
lists and on Meta before it has completed, but this is a price we are
happy to pay to involve the community and achieve transparence.

>
> John Vandenberg.
> sent from Galaxy Note
> On Oct 31, 2012 7:26 AM, "Tilman Bayer"  wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> we have just launched the Foundation's 2012 editor survey; with
>> invitations to participate being shown to logged-in users on Wikipedia
>> and Commons.
>>
>> A few quick facts about the survey (for more refer to
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_Editor_Survey_2012
>> ):
>>
>> * This is the third survey of editors as envisaged in the Foundation's
>> 2010-15 strategic plan "in order to take the pulse of the community
>> and identify pressing issues or concerns", after the April 2011 and
>> December 2011 surveys.
>>
>> * The first main purpose of this survey is to continue the work of the
>> 2011 studies (conducted by Mani Pande and Ayush Khanna), with a focus
>> on tracking changes since last year and identifying trends.
>> Which is why many questions are being repeated from last time.
>>
>> * The second emphasis in this instance of the survey is to measure the
>> satisfaction of the editing community with the work of the Wikimedia
>> Foundation.
>>
>> * This is the first editor survey that includes a non-Wikipedia
>> project (Commons, for the questions that are non Wikipedia-specific).
>>
>> * Thanks to everyone who commented on the draft questionnaire after we
>> solicited feedback on this list and in and IRC office hour, as well as
>> to those who commented about the last survey. We made several changes
>> based on the feedback, and tried to reply to all concerns.
>>
>> * Also many thanks to all volunteer translators who reviewed or
>> contributed translations; the questionnaire is available in 14
>> languages (Italian, Polish and Portuguese will launch a bit later).
>>
>> * As with the previous two surveys, the results will be published in
>> the following forms: A "topline" report detailing the percentage of
>> responses for each question, a series of posts on
>> https://blog.wikimedia.org analyzing the results, and a data set
>> consisting of anonymized responses which others can use to do their
>> own analyses. This time we will also aim to produce language-specific
>> topline reports (an approach we already tested for Chinese with the
>> data from the December 2011 survey).
>>
>> --
>> Tilman Bayer
>> Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>> IRC (Freenode): HaeB
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> wikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> wikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-r

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Wikimedia-l] 2012 Editor survey launched

[Tilman Bayer]

Hi John,

On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 6:05 PM, John Vandenberg  wrote:
> Hi Tilman,
>
> Could you explain the logic behind the survey link not being static until
> the user completes the survey or dismisses the notice?
I guess you are referring to the fact that the survey invitation
banner is designed to be shown only once to each user? This is
explained in the Q&A for the survey:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_Editor_Survey_2012#Why_will_a_user_see_the_link_to_the_survey_only_once.3F_How.3F
In short, it's intended to reduce bias towards more frequent editors.
There are reasons for and against this setup, but it's one of the many
things that we want to keep consistent with the last survey so as to
be able to do longitudinal analysis, i.e. identify trends.

(In case this is not what you meant, feel free to rephrase the
question and I will try to reply again.)

>
> I appreciate that you're offering, via email, to give people the survey
> link if they missed it, but that will influence who ends up your survey
> population. Not everyone on your target population is subscribed to a list
> whetr this offer has been made.
I understand this concern from a theoretical standpoint, but
considering the fact that only four people have requested such a link
so far, the bias that this introduces is likely to be negligible. - If
one goes down that road, one would need to worry much more about the
effect of announcements and discussions about the survey on mailing
lists and on Meta before it has completed, but this is a price we are
happy to pay to involve the community and achieve transparence.

>
> John Vandenberg.
> sent from Galaxy Note
> On Oct 31, 2012 7:26 AM, "Tilman Bayer"  wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> we have just launched the Foundation's 2012 editor survey; with
>> invitations to participate being shown to logged-in users on Wikipedia
>> and Commons.
>>
>> A few quick facts about the survey (for more refer to
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_Editor_Survey_2012
>> ):
>>
>> * This is the third survey of editors as envisaged in the Foundation's
>> 2010-15 strategic plan "in order to take the pulse of the community
>> and identify pressing issues or concerns", after the April 2011 and
>> December 2011 surveys.
>>
>> * The first main purpose of this survey is to continue the work of the
>> 2011 studies (conducted by Mani Pande and Ayush Khanna), with a focus
>> on tracking changes since last year and identifying trends.
>> Which is why many questions are being repeated from last time.
>>
>> * The second emphasis in this instance of the survey is to measure the
>> satisfaction of the editing community with the work of the Wikimedia
>> Foundation.
>>
>> * This is the first editor survey that includes a non-Wikipedia
>> project (Commons, for the questions that are non Wikipedia-specific).
>>
>> * Thanks to everyone who commented on the draft questionnaire after we
>> solicited feedback on this list and in and IRC office hour, as well as
>> to those who commented about the last survey. We made several changes
>> based on the feedback, and tried to reply to all concerns.
>>
>> * Also many thanks to all volunteer translators who reviewed or
>> contributed translations; the questionnaire is available in 14
>> languages (Italian, Polish and Portuguese will launch a bit later).
>>
>> * As with the previous two surveys, the results will be published in
>> the following forms: A "topline" report detailing the percentage of
>> responses for each question, a series of posts on
>> https://blog.wikimedia.org analyzing the results, and a data set
>> consisting of anonymized responses which others can use to do their
>> own analyses. This time we will also aim to produce language-specific
>> topline reports (an approach we already tested for Chinese with the
>> data from the December 2011 survey).
>>
>> --
>> Tilman Bayer
>> Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>> IRC (Freenode): HaeB
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> wikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> wikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Wikimedia-l] 2012 Editor survey launched

[John Vandenberg]

Hi Tilman,

Could you explain the logic behind the survey link not being static until
the user completes the survey or dismisses the notice?

I appreciate that you're offering, via email, to give people the survey
link if they missed it, but that will influence who ends up your survey
population. Not everyone on your target population is subscribed to a list
whetr this offer has been made.

John Vandenberg.
sent from Galaxy Note
On Oct 31, 2012 7:26 AM, "Tilman Bayer"  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> we have just launched the Foundation's 2012 editor survey; with
> invitations to participate being shown to logged-in users on Wikipedia
> and Commons.
>
> A few quick facts about the survey (for more refer to
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_Editor_Survey_2012
> ):
>
> * This is the third survey of editors as envisaged in the Foundation's
> 2010-15 strategic plan "in order to take the pulse of the community
> and identify pressing issues or concerns", after the April 2011 and
> December 2011 surveys.
>
> * The first main purpose of this survey is to continue the work of the
> 2011 studies (conducted by Mani Pande and Ayush Khanna), with a focus
> on tracking changes since last year and identifying trends.
> Which is why many questions are being repeated from last time.
>
> * The second emphasis in this instance of the survey is to measure the
> satisfaction of the editing community with the work of the Wikimedia
> Foundation.
>
> * This is the first editor survey that includes a non-Wikipedia
> project (Commons, for the questions that are non Wikipedia-specific).
>
> * Thanks to everyone who commented on the draft questionnaire after we
> solicited feedback on this list and in and IRC office hour, as well as
> to those who commented about the last survey. We made several changes
> based on the feedback, and tried to reply to all concerns.
>
> * Also many thanks to all volunteer translators who reviewed or
> contributed translations; the questionnaire is available in 14
> languages (Italian, Polish and Portuguese will launch a bit later).
>
> * As with the previous two surveys, the results will be published in
> the following forms: A "topline" report detailing the percentage of
> responses for each question, a series of posts on
> https://blog.wikimedia.org analyzing the results, and a data set
> consisting of anonymized responses which others can use to do their
> own analyses. This time we will also aim to produce language-specific
> topline reports (an approach we already tested for Chinese with the
> data from the December 2011 survey).
>
> --
> Tilman Bayer
> Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
> Wikimedia Foundation
> IRC (Freenode): HaeB
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> wikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-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] Wiki Research Jounal…

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello,
I wouldn't call it a "wiki journal", that gives a wrong impression,
and also not call the draft like that.
Kind regards
Ziko

2012/11/2 Pierre-Carl Langlais :
>
> Thanks a lot for these interesting information. I have given a look at the
> French Institute of scientific evaluation (AERES). Their requirements are
> very simlar :
> (1) Open editorial comittee, with international range and a main focus of
> research.
> (2) Efficient selection process (which imply a significant rate of
> rejection)
> (3) International openness.
> (4) Institutionnal support (from scientific organization…)
> (5) Good quality management (timeliness…)
> (6) Implication in disciplinary and community debates.
>
> It's certainly far from the ambitious projects of emirjp, but I have
> expanded a bit my shaping device :
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Alexander_Doria/First_Proposal_for_a_Wiki_Journal
>
> Concerning the wiki vs. wider thematic, I think the matter ought to be
> considered on a strategic level. The wiki is undeniably a good market niche,
> as no specific journal covers the topics so far. Yet, as an experiment in
> open access, the journal may have some legitimacy to tackle collaborative
> and open knowledge wider thema. Therefore, I would rather support a flexible
> position : the main focus remains wiki-research even though the scientific
> comittee can, from time to time, go beyond this definite range.
>
> PCL
>
> I'd like to provide some data for comparison in terms of requirements for
> traditional academic journals. The Brazilian committee for my area that
> rates journals and acts as standard for cvs, tenures etc, lists [1]:
>
> - editor-in-chief
> - editorial committee
> - consultive committee
> - ISSN
> - editorial policies
> - submission rules
> - peer-review
> - at least 14 annual articles
> - institutional affiliation for authors
> - institutional affiliation for committee members
> - abstracts and keywords in at least two languages
> - dates for articles receives and for articles published
> - must have at least one year of existence
> - regular periodicity
>
> My area happens to be History, and I know maybe some of these requirements
> are not exactly fitting for the intended goal here. But, like I said, I'm
> just listing some elements you might consider including.
>
> Juliana.
>
>
> [1]
> http://www.capes.gov.br/images/stories/download/avaliacao/Qualis_-_Historia.pdf
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais
>  wrote:
>>
>>
>> I have just made a very quick draft to have a general idea of what the
>> journal could be :
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Alexander_Doria/First_Proposal_for_a_Wiki_Journal
>>
>> It includes notably a « Making-Of » section that comprises all the working
>> and contextual texts that are not visible in most academic journals.
>>
>> PCL
>>
>> As far as my experience goes, the required group of editors would be an
>> editor-in-chief, an executive committee and a scientific committee, mostly
>> responsible for the peer reviews. Since I would like to participate, this
>> reminds me what criteria would be adopt for recruiting these, and how this
>> decision will be taken. I also assume that one or more universities (or an
>> academic institution, for that matter) would have to provide support - as
>> of, "published by...".
>>
>> Of course, this is the traditional way... Some things can be changed, but
>> others need to be retained in order for the journal to receive academic
>> recognition.
>>
>> Juliana.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> One idea would be to appoint one or several volunteer editor(s). They
>>> could ensure all the formal and administrative aspects of the journal:
>>> receiving and anonymizing the propositions, publishing them on the wiki,
>>> editing the final Wiki and PDF versions, keep in touch with ISI and other
>>> evaluation system and so on…
>>>
>>> @emirjp : well you can already count me in :)
>>>
 Not my case, but I understand that there are people in that situation.
 This story was the same in 2001, when people thought that only an
 expert-written encyclopedia with very rigid methods would be successful.

 Good for you, but it is somewhat irrelevant. I'd speculate that possibly
 even most of the academic journals' production is done by people who do 
 have
 to care where they publish. Per comparing the situation to Wikipedia in
 2001, I want to firmly state that oranges are much better than apples.

 Entering the journal rankings is based on citation numbers, right? I did
 this suggest thinking on the valuable researchers in this list, which may 
 be
 interested in publishing/peer-reviewing stuff in the journal. Won't you 
 cite
 that papers?

 The JCR journal ranking, which so far is the only one that matters (in
 spite of its major flaws, methodological issues, etc.), bases on the number
 of

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki Research Jounal…

[Samuel Klein]

Hej, this is great.  I think you should consider the following combined
model:

* Organize [papers] and [reviews] on a wiki.  Aim for open collaboration
and discussion among researchers in the draft phase.
[papers] := drafts, data, analysis, reflists; casual peer review
[reviews] := comments, questions, ideas, connections

* Publish a less formal monthly update, perhaps in tandem with the WMF
Research Newsletter

* Organize a selection process every 4-6 months :
# an editorial team chooses the best new work, asks the authors for a
snapshot to send to formal peer review.
# organize more formal blind peer review [FPR], with reviewers who don't
take part in the casual reviews above.
# make an editorial decision of how much of the backstory (data,
commentary, interlinking & cross-refs) to include in the snapshot.

* Collate the accepted output of this FPR into a paginated snapshot with a
little editorial love: an introduction, cover matter, a description of the
journal and submission process [for anyone who finds a printout or epub of
just that snapshot].  These are the formal issues circulated to libraries,
invited to journal parties, &c.  Each article should link to its history
page [and in the future, both its article history and its dataset history].

I'm pretty sure that libraries at Harvard and MIT would pick up a
subscription.  And we could start soliciting submissions from colleagues
who do great work and don't mind (or love the idea of) having a possibly
seminal paper published in this sort of new-style journal.

SJ

PS - a few nice features of a successful journal, in my opinion:
1) authors will start to decide for themselves how to credit a crowd of
dozens of people who contributed to a final paper, @ varying levels of
detail
2) the ratio of (bibliography + footnotes) / (body) will be significantly
higher than in other journals
3) the density of interlinks and cross-references will be high
4) in the living / online version of the journal, articles will be
published with transclusions from other research


On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Piotr Konieczny  wrote:

>  I like the draft design. Here's an idea on how to do tackle the double
> blind peer review, wiki way:
>
> 1) anonymous submissions: let's have a public account for submissions
> (username and password either listed on the journal page, or given out by
> editor through email). This being meta or wikiversity, vandalism shouldn't
> be an issue. Interested authors can contact editor(s) by email, providing
> them with real name, and submit the anonymous paper through the submission
> account.
> 2) anonymous reviews: interested reviewers would use a similar anonymous
> reviewer account to  make comments, signing as Reviewer 1, Reviewer 2, etc.
> Editor(s) would of course now their identities (through it is not as
> necessary as in the case of the author).
>
> Things to consider:
> a) should we accept anonymous reviewers, as in - even the editor(s) don't
> know their identity? This would be an issue if the reviewer
> username/password are made public.
> b) should be accept non-anonymous reviews, i.e. what to do if a regular
> wikieditor comments using their normal account? I think we should allow
> this, to encourage people to make small comment, without committing
> themselves fully to a review, with the understanding that the non-anonymous
> reviews are not counted as "official" reviews, for the purpose of
> double-blind peer review / indices assessment.
>
> --
> Piotr Konieczny
>
> "To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on 
> one's laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski
>
> On 11/2/2012 8:39 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais wrote:
>
>
>  I have just made a very quick draft to have a general idea of what the
> journal could be :
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Alexander_Doria/First_Proposal_for_a_Wiki_Journal
>
>  It includes notably a « Making-Of » section that comprises all the
> working and contextual texts that are not visible in most academic journals.
>
>  PCL
>
> As far as my experience goes, the required group of editors would be an
> editor-in-chief, an executive committee and a scientific committee, mostly
> responsible for the peer reviews. Since I would like to participate, this
> reminds me what criteria would be adopt for recruiting these, and how this
> decision will be taken. I also assume that one or more universities (or an
> academic institution, for that matter) would have to provide support - as
> of, "published by...".
>
>  Of course, this is the traditional way... Some things can be changed,
> but others need to be retained in order for the journal to receive academic
> recognition.
>
>  Juliana.
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais <
> langlais.qo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> One idea would be to appoint one or several volunteer editor(s). They
>> could ensure all the formal and administrative aspects of the journal:
>> receiving and anonymizing the propositions, publish

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki Research Jounal…

[Piotr Konieczny]

I like the draft design. Here's an idea on how to do tackle the double 
blind peer review, wiki way:


1) anonymous submissions: let's have a public account for submissions 
(username and password either listed on the journal page, or given out 
by editor through email). This being meta or wikiversity, vandalism 
shouldn't be an issue. Interested authors can contact editor(s) by 
email, providing them with real name, and submit the anonymous paper 
through the submission account.
2) anonymous reviews: interested reviewers would use a similar anonymous 
reviewer account to  make comments, signing as Reviewer 1, Reviewer 2, 
etc. Editor(s) would of course now their identities (through it is not 
as necessary as in the case of the author).


Things to consider:
a) should we accept anonymous reviewers, as in - even the editor(s) 
don't know their identity? This would be an issue if the reviewer 
username/password are made public.
b) should be accept non-anonymous reviews, i.e. what to do if a regular 
wikieditor comments using their normal account? I think we should allow 
this, to encourage people to make small comment, without committing 
themselves fully to a review, with the understanding that the 
non-anonymous reviews are not counted as "official" reviews, for the 
purpose of double-blind peer review / indices assessment.


--
Piotr Konieczny

"To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's 
laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski

On 11/2/2012 8:39 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais wrote:


I have just made a very quick draft to have a general idea of what the 
journal could be : 
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Alexander_Doria/First_Proposal_for_a_Wiki_Journal


It includes notably a « Making-Of » section that comprises all the 
working and contextual texts that are not visible in most academic 
journals.


PCL

As far as my experience goes, the required group of editors would be 
an editor-in-chief, an executive committee and a scientific 
committee, mostly responsible for the peer reviews. Since I would 
like to participate, this reminds me what criteria would be adopt for 
recruiting these, and how this decision will be taken. I also assume 
that one or more universities (or an academic institution, for that 
matter) would have to provide support - as of, "published by...".


Of course, this is the traditional way... Some things can be changed, 
but others need to be retained in order for the journal to receive 
academic recognition.


Juliana.


On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais 
mailto:langlais.qo...@gmail.com>> wrote:



One idea would be to appoint one or several volunteer editor(s).
They could ensure all the formal and administrative aspects of
the journal: receiving and anonymizing the propositions,
publishing them on the wiki, editing the final Wiki and PDF
versions, keep in touch with ISI and other evaluation system and
so on…

@emirjp : well you can already count me in :)

Not my case, but I understand that there are people in that
situation. This story was the same in 2001, when people
thought that only an expert-written encyclopedia with very
rigid methods would be successful.

Good for you, but it is somewhat irrelevant. I'd speculate
that possibly even most of the academic journals' production
is done by people who do have to care where they publish. Per
comparing the situation to Wikipedia in 2001, I want to
firmly state that oranges are much better than apples.

Entering the journal rankings is based on citation numbers,
right? I did this suggest thinking on the valuable
researchers in this list, which may be interested in
publishing/peer-reviewing stuff in the journal. Won't you
cite that papers?

The JCR journal ranking, which so far is the only one that
matters (in spite of its major flaws, methodological issues,
etc.), bases on the number of citations counted ONLY in other
journals already listed in it.

But there are also threshold requirements to be even
considered for JCR ranking, and obviously a double-blind peer
reviews is a must. For practical reasons of indexing, paper
redistribution, etc., PDFs and numbered pages also make life
of a person who wants to cite a paper much easier.

While I support your idea in principle, I think that it
requires much more effort, planning, and understanding of how
academic publishing and career paths actually work, than in
the concept of "all we need is wiki".

cheers,

dj
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l



__

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki Research Jounal…

[Brian Keegan]

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 bootstrapping problem is particularly severe for the reasons Dariusz
outlined.

I suspect "hijacking" existing journal infrastructures in your respective
domains to have special issues on Wikis and Open Collaboration (the recent
American Behavioral Scientist special issue comes to mind) is a far more
practicable approach to developing the critical mass of interest in your
respective fields in the near term. The longer-term goal should be to bend
receptive open publication outlets (e.g., First Monday, Journal of Computer
Mediated Communication, EPJ Data Science, PLoS One, etc.) toward more
wiki-like models.

On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Piotr Konieczny  wrote:

>  I would like to volunteer to help, but I agree with Darek that we need
> to aim towards entering serious journal rankings from day 1. I think we can
> both experiment with the wiki publishing model, and prepare a pdf versions
> if needed for the traditionalists; it's not like it's difficult - MediaWiki
> has a pdf-export option (wikibook), and it is a standard feature in
> Open/Libre Office, too.
>
> --
> Piotr Konieczny
>
>
> On 11/2/2012 5:58 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
>
> unfortunately, if you want to make impact in the Academia, the approach of
> "all we need is a wiki" will not work. Even the most avid enthusiasts of
> open publication models and of wiki usually do have career-paths, tenure
> reviews, etc. As long as reality is as it is now, we'd have to have a
> "proper" journal, with PDFs, page numbers, etc., and an aim to enter the
> journal rankings, because otherwise the top researchers will have a strong
> incentive not to even consider our journal in their publications.
>
>  best,
>
>  dj
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:42 AM, emijrp  wrote:
>
>> Yes, I think that it is important to focus in the wikis topic. It is so
>> broad that hardly would need more than that, I neither understand the
>> WikiSym move to OpenSym.
>>
>> But not only a new journal, we have an opportunity to create a more open
>> publication model, using a... wiki for all the steps (writing,
>> peer-reviewing and final publication).
>>
>> I see this project like a big experiment. All we need is a wiki, some
>> volunteers to write papers and some volunteers to peer-review them. After a
>> year of work, we can publish all the "approved" papers as the Journal of
>> Wikis, Vol. 1, Issue 1.
>>
>> Volunteers?
>>
>>
>>
>> 2012/11/2 Piotr Konieczny 
>>
>>>  This is not a list for researching collaboration support software,
>>> this is a list for discussing one specific type of it, the wikis (with a
>>> focus on Wikipedia). I see nothing wrong with retaining this focus, and I
>>> am surprised that the rather successful WikiSym is trying to reframe
>>> itself. Perhaps it makes sense for a conference, although I am not
>>> convinced. For journal, there is certainly a scope for a (the...) journal
>>> limited to wiki studies. There is already a number of journals dedicated to
>>> collaboration support software (International Journal of Computer-Supported
>>> Collaborative Learning - http://ijcscl.org/ ; International Journal of
>>> e-Collaboration -
>>> http://www.igi-global.com/journal/international-journal-collaboration-ijec/1090;
>>>  The Journal of Collaborative Computing and Work Practices -
>>> http://www.springer.com/computer/journal/10606), plus some more broad
>>> journals on collaboration (International Journal of Collaborative Practices
>>> - http://collaborative-practices.com/ ; Journal of collaboration -
>>> http://www.springerlink.com/content/g22377427w636731/). Starting an
>>> n-th journal on that topic seems rather pointless to me, the only redeeming
>>> grace would be that ours would be open source (most others are closed).
>>> Much better, IMHO, to start the FIRST journal of wiki studies. A more
>>> narrow field, yes, but much more badly in need of a journal than the
>>> broader field of collaboration support software, which already has several
>>> related journals.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Piotr Konieczny
>>>
>>> "To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on 
>>> one's laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski
>>>
>>>   On 11/1/2012 2:21 PM, Aaron Halfaker wrote:
>>>
>>> > I'd suggest focusing on the area of wiki studies, nothing more and
>>> nothing less.
>>>
>>>  I don't think that this is a good strategy.  Wiki's are just one type
>>> of collaboration support software.  What if the artifact of collaboration
>>> is not hypertext?  Most people would not consider a open source code
>>> repository to be a "wiki" without doing some stretching, but as far as the
>>> contribution model goes, it is nearly the same.
>>>
>>>  Recently, the steering committee

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki Research Jounal…

[Piotr Konieczny]

I would like to volunteer to help, but I agree with Darek that we need 
to aim towards entering serious journal rankings from day 1. I think we 
can both experiment with the wiki publishing model, and prepare a pdf 
versions if needed for the traditionalists; it's not like it's difficult 
- MediaWiki has a pdf-export option (wikibook), and it is a standard 
feature in Open/Libre Office, too.


--
Piotr Konieczny

On 11/2/2012 5:58 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
unfortunately, if you want to make impact in the Academia, the 
approach of "all we need is a wiki" will not work. Even the most avid 
enthusiasts of open publication models and of wiki usually do have 
career-paths, tenure reviews, etc. As long as reality is as it is now, 
we'd have to have a "proper" journal, with PDFs, page numbers, etc., 
and an aim to enter the journal rankings, because otherwise the top 
researchers will have a strong incentive not to even consider our 
journal in their publications.


best,

dj


On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:42 AM, emijrp > wrote:


Yes, I think that it is important to focus in the wikis topic. It
is so broad that hardly would need more than that, I neither
understand the WikiSym move to OpenSym.

But not only a new journal, we have an opportunity to create a
more open publication model, using a... wiki for all the steps
(writing, peer-reviewing and final publication).

I see this project like a big experiment. All we need is a wiki,
some volunteers to write papers and some volunteers to peer-review
them. After a year of work, we can publish all the "approved"
papers as the Journal of Wikis, Vol. 1, Issue 1.

Volunteers?



2012/11/2 Piotr Konieczny mailto:pio...@post.pl>>

This is not a list for researching collaboration support
software, this is a list for discussing one specific type of
it, the wikis (with a focus on Wikipedia). I see nothing wrong
with retaining this focus, and I am surprised that the rather
successful WikiSym is trying to reframe itself. Perhaps it
makes sense for a conference, although I am not convinced. For
journal, there is certainly a scope for a (the...) journal
limited to wiki studies. There is already a number of journals
dedicated to collaboration support software (International
Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning -
http://ijcscl.org/ ; International Journal of e-Collaboration
-

http://www.igi-global.com/journal/international-journal-collaboration-ijec/1090
; The Journal of Collaborative Computing and Work Practices -
http://www.springer.com/computer/journal/10606), plus some
more broad journals on collaboration (International Journal of
Collaborative Practices - http://collaborative-practices.com/
; Journal of collaboration -
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g22377427w636731/).
Starting an n-th journal on that topic seems rather pointless
to me, the only redeeming grace would be that ours would be
open source (most others are closed). Much better, IMHO, to
start the FIRST journal of wiki studies. A more narrow field,
yes, but much more badly in need of a journal than the broader
field of collaboration support software, which already has
several related journals.

--
Piotr Konieczny

"To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on 
one's laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski

On 11/1/2012 2:21 PM, Aaron Halfaker wrote:

> I'd suggest focusing on the area of wiki studies, nothing
more and nothing less.

I don't think that this is a good strategy.  Wiki's are just
one type of collaboration support software.  What if the
artifact of collaboration is not hypertext?  Most people
would not consider a open source code repository to be a
"wiki" without doing some stretching, but as far as the
contribution model goes, it is nearly the same.

Recently, the steering committee of WikiSym became aware of
the problem of branding the conference around a single open
collaboration technology and has started a transition from
"WikiSym" to "OpenSym".


On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Piotr Konieczny
mailto:pio...@post.pl>> wrote:

On 11/1/2012 7:45 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais wrote:


*Technical issue : we probably need a specific wiki.
Whereas not highly sophisticated, it should perhaps
include some reading functions in order to make the
journal main content easy to read and to refer to.

What's wrong with hosting it at one of WMF wikis? Meta or
Wikiversity seem rather appropriate?


*Scientific issue : the journal requires r

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki Research Jounal…

[Juliana Bastos Marques]

As for any candidates for institutional academic support, I could easily
arrange for my university, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro State
(UNIRIO - http://www.unirio.br), where I've been setting a wiki research
Lab and we have a very good Library Studies Dept., where they can help us
with the setting of the journal. Brazil has a wide experience in
open-access journals (we don't have these paywalls at all. See, e.g.,
http://www.scielo.org).

In fact, I do think that two or three institutions working as partners to
host the journal would be great (one of them being WMF?), and in keeping
with current international academic goals.

Juliana.



On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Pierre-Carl Langlais <
langlais.qo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Thanks a lot for these interesting information. I have given a look at the
> French Institute of scientific evaluation (AERES). Their requirements are
> very simlar :
> (1) Open editorial comittee, with international range and a main focus of
> research.
> (2) Efficient selection process (which imply a significant rate of
> rejection)
> (3) International openness.
> (4) Institutionnal support (from scientific organization…)
> (5) Good quality management (timeliness…)
> (6) Implication in disciplinary and community debates.
>
> It's certainly far from the ambitious projects of emirjp, but I have
> expanded a bit my shaping device :
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Alexander_Doria/First_Proposal_for_a_Wiki_Journal
>
> Concerning the wiki vs. wider thematic, I think the matter ought to be
> considered on a strategic level. The wiki is undeniably a good market
> niche, as no specific journal covers the topics so far. Yet, as an
> experiment in open access, the journal may have some legitimacy to tackle
> collaborative and open knowledge wider thema. Therefore, I would rather
> support a flexible position : the main focus remains wiki-research even
> though the scientific comittee can, from time to time, go beyond this
> definite range.
>
> PCL
>
> I'd like to provide some data for comparison in terms of requirements for
> traditional academic journals. The Brazilian committee for my area that
> rates journals and acts as standard for cvs, tenures etc, lists [1]:
>
> - editor-in-chief
> - editorial committee
> - consultive committee
> - ISSN
> - editorial policies
> - submission rules
> - peer-review
> - at least 14 annual articles
> - institutional affiliation for authors
> - institutional affiliation for committee members
> - abstracts and keywords in at least two languages
> - dates for articles receives and for articles published
> - must have at least one year of existence
> - regular periodicity
>
> My area happens to be History, and I know maybe some of these requirements
> are not exactly fitting for the intended goal here. But, like I said, I'm
> just listing some elements you might consider including.
>
> Juliana.
>
>
> [1]
> http://www.capes.gov.br/images/stories/download/avaliacao/Qualis_-_Historia.pdf
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais <
> langlais.qo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I have just made a very quick draft to have a general idea of what the
>> journal could be :
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Alexander_Doria/First_Proposal_for_a_Wiki_Journal
>>
>> It includes notably a « Making-Of » section that comprises all the
>> working and contextual texts that are not visible in most academic journals.
>>
>> PCL
>>
>> As far as my experience goes, the required group of editors would be an
>> editor-in-chief, an executive committee and a scientific committee, mostly
>> responsible for the peer reviews. Since I would like to participate, this
>> reminds me what criteria would be adopt for recruiting these, and how this
>> decision will be taken. I also assume that one or more universities (or an
>> academic institution, for that matter) would have to provide support - as
>> of, "published by...".
>>
>> Of course, this is the traditional way... Some things can be changed, but
>> others need to be retained in order for the journal to receive academic
>> recognition.
>>
>> Juliana.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais <
>> langlais.qo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> One idea would be to appoint one or several volunteer editor(s). They
>>> could ensure all the formal and administrative aspects of the journal:
>>> receiving and anonymizing the propositions, publishing them on the wiki,
>>> editing the final Wiki and PDF versions, keep in touch with ISI and other
>>> evaluation system and so on…
>>>
>>> @emirjp : well you can already count me in :)
>>>
>>>  Not my case, but I understand that there are people in that situation.
 This story was the same in 2001, when people thought that only an
 expert-written encyclopedia with very rigid methods would be successful.

 Good for you, but it is somewhat irrelevant. I'd speculate that
 possibly even most of the academic journals' production is do

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki Research Jounal…

[Pierre-Carl Langlais]

Thanks a lot for these interesting information. I have given a look at  
the French Institute of scientific evaluation (AERES). Their  
requirements are very simlar :
(1) Open editorial comittee, with international range and a main focus  
of research.
(2) Efficient selection process (which imply a significant rate of  
rejection)

(3) International openness.
(4) Institutionnal support (from scientific organization…)
(5) Good quality management (timeliness…)
(6) Implication in disciplinary and community debates.

It's certainly far from the ambitious projects of emirjp, but I have  
expanded a bit my shaping device : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Alexander_Doria/First_Proposal_for_a_Wiki_Journal


Concerning the wiki vs. wider thematic, I think the matter ought to be  
considered on a strategic level. The wiki is undeniably a good market  
niche, as no specific journal covers the topics so far. Yet, as an  
experiment in open access, the journal may have some legitimacy to  
tackle collaborative and open knowledge wider thema. Therefore, I  
would rather support a flexible position : the main focus remains wiki- 
research even though the scientific comittee can, from time to time,  
go beyond this definite range.


PCL

I'd like to provide some data for comparison in terms of  
requirements for traditional academic journals. The Brazilian  
committee for my area that rates journals and acts as standard for  
cvs, tenures etc, lists [1]:


- editor-in-chief
- editorial committee
- consultive committee
- ISSN
- editorial policies
- submission rules
- peer-review
- at least 14 annual articles
- institutional affiliation for authors
- institutional affiliation for committee members
- abstracts and keywords in at least two languages
- dates for articles receives and for articles published
- must have at least one year of existence
- regular periodicity

My area happens to be History, and I know maybe some of these  
requirements are not exactly fitting for the intended goal here.  
But, like I said, I'm just listing some elements you might consider  
including.


Juliana.


[1] 
http://www.capes.gov.br/images/stories/download/avaliacao/Qualis_-_Historia.pdf




On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais > wrote:


I have just made a very quick draft to have a general idea of what  
the journal could be : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Alexander_Doria/First_Proposal_for_a_Wiki_Journal


It includes notably a « Making-Of » section that comprises all the  
working and contextual texts that are not visible in most academic  
journals.


PCL

As far as my experience goes, the required group of editors would  
be an editor-in-chief, an executive committee and a scientific  
committee, mostly responsible for the peer reviews. Since I would  
like to participate, this reminds me what criteria would be adopt  
for recruiting these, and how this decision will be taken. I also  
assume that one or more universities (or an academic institution,  
for that matter) would have to provide support - as of, "published  
by...".


Of course, this is the traditional way... Some things can be  
changed, but others need to be retained in order for the journal to  
receive academic recognition.


Juliana.


On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais > wrote:


One idea would be to appoint one or several volunteer editor(s).  
They could ensure all the formal and administrative aspects of the  
journal: receiving and anonymizing the propositions, publishing  
them on the wiki, editing the final Wiki and PDF versions, keep in  
touch with ISI and other evaluation system and so on…


@emirjp : well you can already count me in :)

Not my case, but I understand that there are people in that  
situation. This story was the same in 2001, when people thought  
that only an expert-written encyclopedia with very rigid methods  
would be successful.


Good for you, but it is somewhat irrelevant. I'd speculate that  
possibly even most of the academic journals' production is done by  
people who do have to care where they publish. Per comparing the  
situation to Wikipedia in 2001, I want to firmly state that oranges  
are much better than apples.


Entering the journal rankings is based on citation numbers, right?  
I did this suggest thinking on the valuable researchers in this  
list, which may be interested in publishing/peer-reviewing stuff in  
the journal. Won't you cite that papers?


The JCR journal ranking, which so far is the only one that matters  
(in spite of its major flaws, methodological issues, etc.), bases  
on the number of citations counted ONLY in other journals already  
listed in it.


But there are also threshold requirements to be even considered for  
JCR ranking, and obviously a double-blind peer reviews is a must.  
For practical reasons of indexing, paper redistribution, etc., PDFs  
and numbered pages also make life of a person who wants to cite a  
paper much easier.


While I sup

[Wiki-research-l] userstats Python library - user-centric metrics on Wikipedia users

[Sumana Harihareswara]

https://github.com/embr/userstats

"We're pleased to release version 0.1.0 of the userstats Python library
and command-line tool for computing user-centric metrics on Wikipedia
users. The goal of the software is to make it easy for project owners to
track the contributions and status of users involved in their project.
It is also intended to be easily extensible so that custom metrics can
be added using only a few lines of Python code."


>From the "Global Learning and Grantmaking" section of the September WMF
report:
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/10/31/wikimedia-foundation-report-september-2012/


-- 
Sumana Harihareswara
Engineering Community Manager
Wikimedia Foundation

___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

[Wiki-research-l] [ANN] Semantic Web Journal: Special Issue on Multilingual Linked Open Data (MLOD) 2012

[Sebastian Hellmann]

Dear all,
please find attached the call for a Special Issue on Multilingual Linked 
Open Data (MLOD) 2012.
Continuing the great success of the MLODE 2012 workshop[1], we welcome 
novel submission until *Nov 23rd* to this special issue of the Semantic 
Web Journal.


We also produced a new version of the LLOD cloud image as a result of 
the workshop:

http://linguistics.okfn.org/resources/llod
We will produce another one after the publication of the special issue.

Please have a look here, if the HTML attachment below is scrambled:
http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/blog/call-multilingual-linked-open-data-mlod-2012-data-post-proceedings

Kind regards,
Sebastian Hellmann (on behalf of all MLOD guest editors: Steven Moran, 
Martin Brümmer, John McCrae)


[1] http://sabre2012.infai.org/mlode


--
Dipl. Inf. Sebastian Hellmann
*Will be on a no-internet holiday from 4.11. till 24.11.*
Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig
Events:
* SWJ Special Issue for Multilingual LOD (*Deadline: Nov 23rd 2012*) - 
http://goo.gl/Bkwts

* http://wole2012.eurecom.fr (@ISWC in Boston)
Projects: http://nlp2rdf.org , http://dbpedia.org
Homepage: http://bis.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/SebastianHellmann
Research Group: http://aksw.org
Title: Call for papers - SWJ
Multilingual Linked Open Data (MLOD) 2012Data Post ProceedingsSpecial Issue of the Semantic Web Journalhttp://www.semantic-web-journal.net/content/suggestions-special-issuesWorkshop homepage: http://sabre2012.infai.org/mlodeImage of the Linguistic LOD Cloud: http://linguistics.okfn.org/resources/llod/Scope of the call:Researchers in NLP and Linguistics are currently discovering Semantic Web technologies and employing them to answer novel research questions. Through the use of linked data, there is the potential to solve many issues currently faced by the language resources community. In particular, there is significant evidence that RDF allows better data integration than existing formats,[1] in part through a rich ecosystem of tools provided by the Semantic Web, such as query[2] and federation.[3] In addition, the Semantic Web has already been used by several authors[4] [5] to define data categories and enable better resource interoperability. The utility of this method of publishing language resources has lead to the interest of a significant sub-community in linguistics.[6]The focus of this special issue is language resources including language data such as written or spoken corpora and lexica, multimodal resources, grammars, terminology or domain specific databases and dictionaries, ontologies, multimedia databases, etc. [7] In addition, we require that these resources are published as linked data using appropriate technologies such as RDF and OWL. Furthermore, we will also accept submission of resources used to assist and augment language processing applications, even if the nature of the resource is not deeply entrenched in Linguistics, but only as long as the usefulness is well motivated (DBpedia redirects and disambiguation pages are one example[8] ). Overall, our vision is to boost a decentralized, collaborative, interlinked and interoperable Web of Data[9] in the area of multilingual language resources. Topics of the callThe current state of the Linguistic Linked Open Data (LLOD) Cloud and inclusion criteriaValidation procedures for linguistic linked data setsBest practices of multilingual linked open dataLegal issues relating to the licensing of linguistic linked dataSemantic annotationLanguage resources, newly published as linked dataOntologies related to multilinguality and language technology. Submission instructions This special issue will especially welcome Full papers, Linked Dataset Descriptions and  Descriptions of Ontologies as specified here: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/authors Please write us an email first before preparing submissions for other submission types.Full papers Full papers contain original research results. These submissions will be reviewed along the usual dimensions for research contributions which include originality, significance of the results, and quality of writing. Any submission that is an extension of previous work must clearly declare the reference and justify the scientific progress of the extension. Linked data set and ontology descriptionsWe invite submissions of data sets and a 4-6 page written description of the data.  Continuing the great success of the MLODE 2012 Workshop[10] in Leipzig, we encourage novel submissions. Note that the workshop focused on the quality and availability of the data, while this issue focuses on the data *and* the written article. We require that:The data is clearly licensed, standardized licenses are recommended.  Submitted data must be available free for academic usage. Open licences are welcome. The data is openly accessible and follows web standards, especially RDF.Technical instructions for contributing data sets:Please send us the data in advance for validation. We ha

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki Research Jounal…

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello,
I find it a very good idea (I expressed it in 2008 or 2009); the focus
should be somewhat defined, e..g wiki's and open content; and it
should be done in a way that others respect the journal.
Kind regards
Ziko

2012/11/2 Juliana Bastos Marques :
> As far as my experience goes, the required group of editors would be an
> editor-in-chief, an executive committee and a scientific committee, mostly
> responsible for the peer reviews. Since I would like to participate, this
> reminds me what criteria would be adopt for recruiting these, and how this
> decision will be taken. I also assume that one or more universities (or an
> academic institution, for that matter) would have to provide support - as
> of, "published by...".
>
> Of course, this is the traditional way... Some things can be changed, but
> others need to be retained in order for the journal to receive academic
> recognition.
>
> Juliana.
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais
>  wrote:
>>
>>
>> One idea would be to appoint one or several volunteer editor(s). They
>> could ensure all the formal and administrative aspects of the journal:
>> receiving and anonymizing the propositions, publishing them on the wiki,
>> editing the final Wiki and PDF versions, keep in touch with ISI and other
>> evaluation system and so on…
>>
>> @emirjp : well you can already count me in :)
>>
>>> Not my case, but I understand that there are people in that situation.
>>> This story was the same in 2001, when people thought that only an
>>> expert-written encyclopedia with very rigid methods would be successful.
>>>
>>> Good for you, but it is somewhat irrelevant. I'd speculate that possibly
>>> even most of the academic journals' production is done by people who do have
>>> to care where they publish. Per comparing the situation to Wikipedia in
>>> 2001, I want to firmly state that oranges are much better than apples.
>>>
>>> Entering the journal rankings is based on citation numbers, right? I did
>>> this suggest thinking on the valuable researchers in this list, which may be
>>> interested in publishing/peer-reviewing stuff in the journal. Won't you cite
>>> that papers?
>>>
>>> The JCR journal ranking, which so far is the only one that matters (in
>>> spite of its major flaws, methodological issues, etc.), bases on the number
>>> of citations counted ONLY in other journals already listed in it.
>>>
>>> But there are also threshold requirements to be even considered for JCR
>>> ranking, and obviously a double-blind peer reviews is a must. For practical
>>> reasons of indexing, paper redistribution, etc., PDFs and numbered pages
>>> also make life of a person who wants to cite a paper much easier.
>>>
>>> While I support your idea in principle, I think that it requires much
>>> more effort, planning, and understanding of how academic publishing and
>>> career paths actually work, than in the concept of "all we need is wiki".
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>>
>>> dj
>>> ___
>>> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> www.domusaurea.org
>
> ___
> 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] Wiki Research Jounal…

[Juliana Bastos Marques]

I'd like to provide some data for comparison in terms of requirements for
traditional academic journals. The Brazilian committee for my area that
rates journals and acts as standard for cvs, tenures etc, lists [1]:

- editor-in-chief
- editorial committee
- consultive committee
- ISSN
- editorial policies
- submission rules
- peer-review
- at least 14 annual articles
- institutional affiliation for authors
- institutional affiliation for committee members
- abstracts and keywords in at least two languages
- dates for articles receives and for articles published
- must have at least one year of existence
- regular periodicity

My area happens to be History, and I know maybe some of these requirements
are not exactly fitting for the intended goal here. But, like I said, I'm
just listing some elements you might consider including.

Juliana.


[1]
http://www.capes.gov.br/images/stories/download/avaliacao/Qualis_-_Historia.pdf




On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais <
langlais.qo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I have just made a very quick draft to have a general idea of what the
> journal could be :
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Alexander_Doria/First_Proposal_for_a_Wiki_Journal
>
> It includes notably a « Making-Of » section that comprises all the working
> and contextual texts that are not visible in most academic journals.
>
> PCL
>
> As far as my experience goes, the required group of editors would be an
> editor-in-chief, an executive committee and a scientific committee, mostly
> responsible for the peer reviews. Since I would like to participate, this
> reminds me what criteria would be adopt for recruiting these, and how this
> decision will be taken. I also assume that one or more universities (or an
> academic institution, for that matter) would have to provide support - as
> of, "published by...".
>
> Of course, this is the traditional way... Some things can be changed, but
> others need to be retained in order for the journal to receive academic
> recognition.
>
> Juliana.
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais <
> langlais.qo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> One idea would be to appoint one or several volunteer editor(s). They
>> could ensure all the formal and administrative aspects of the journal:
>> receiving and anonymizing the propositions, publishing them on the wiki,
>> editing the final Wiki and PDF versions, keep in touch with ISI and other
>> evaluation system and so on…
>>
>> @emirjp : well you can already count me in :)
>>
>>  Not my case, but I understand that there are people in that situation.
>>> This story was the same in 2001, when people thought that only an
>>> expert-written encyclopedia with very rigid methods would be successful.
>>>
>>> Good for you, but it is somewhat irrelevant. I'd speculate that possibly
>>> even most of the academic journals' production is done by people who do
>>> have to care where they publish. Per comparing the situation to Wikipedia
>>> in 2001, I want to firmly state that oranges are much better than apples.
>>>
>>> Entering the journal rankings is based on citation numbers, right? I did
>>> this suggest thinking on the valuable researchers in this list, which may
>>> be interested in publishing/peer-reviewing stuff in the journal. Won't you
>>> cite that papers?
>>>
>>> The JCR journal ranking, which so far is the only one that matters (in
>>> spite of its major flaws, methodological issues, etc.), bases on the number
>>> of citations counted ONLY in other journals already listed in it.
>>>
>>> But there are also threshold requirements to be even considered for JCR
>>> ranking, and obviously a double-blind peer reviews is a must. For practical
>>> reasons of indexing, paper redistribution, etc., PDFs and numbered pages
>>> also make life of a person who wants to cite a paper much easier.
>>>
>>> While I support your idea in principle, I think that it requires much
>>> more effort, planning, and understanding of how academic publishing and
>>> career paths actually work, than in the concept of "all we need is wiki".
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>>
>>> dj
>>> __**_
>>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> www.domusaurea.org
>  ___
> 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.

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki Research Jounal…

[Pierre-Carl Langlais]

I have just made a very quick draft to have a general idea of what the  
journal could be : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Alexander_Doria/First_Proposal_for_a_Wiki_Journal


It includes notably a « Making-Of » section that comprises all the  
working and contextual texts that are not visible in most academic  
journals.


PCL

As far as my experience goes, the required group of editors would be  
an editor-in-chief, an executive committee and a scientific  
committee, mostly responsible for the peer reviews. Since I would  
like to participate, this reminds me what criteria would be adopt  
for recruiting these, and how this decision will be taken. I also  
assume that one or more universities (or an academic institution,  
for that matter) would have to provide support - as of, "published  
by...".


Of course, this is the traditional way... Some things can be  
changed, but others need to be retained in order for the journal to  
receive academic recognition.


Juliana.


On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais > wrote:


One idea would be to appoint one or several volunteer editor(s).  
They could ensure all the formal and administrative aspects of the  
journal: receiving and anonymizing the propositions, publishing them  
on the wiki, editing the final Wiki and PDF versions, keep in touch  
with ISI and other evaluation system and so on…


@emirjp : well you can already count me in :)

Not my case, but I understand that there are people in that  
situation. This story was the same in 2001, when people thought that  
only an expert-written encyclopedia with very rigid methods would be  
successful.


Good for you, but it is somewhat irrelevant. I'd speculate that  
possibly even most of the academic journals' production is done by  
people who do have to care where they publish. Per comparing the  
situation to Wikipedia in 2001, I want to firmly state that oranges  
are much better than apples.


Entering the journal rankings is based on citation numbers, right? I  
did this suggest thinking on the valuable researchers in this list,  
which may be interested in publishing/peer-reviewing stuff in the  
journal. Won't you cite that papers?


The JCR journal ranking, which so far is the only one that matters  
(in spite of its major flaws, methodological issues, etc.), bases on  
the number of citations counted ONLY in other journals already  
listed in it.


But there are also threshold requirements to be even considered for  
JCR ranking, and obviously a double-blind peer reviews is a must.  
For practical reasons of indexing, paper redistribution, etc., PDFs  
and numbered pages also make life of a person who wants to cite a  
paper much easier.


While I support your idea in principle, I think that it requires  
much more effort, planning, and understanding of how academic  
publishing and career paths actually work, than in the concept of  
"all we need is wiki".


cheers,

dj
___
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



--
www.domusaurea.org
___
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] Wiki Research Jounal…

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

fair enough, when people tell you that something is impossible, it means
you're probably on the right way :) good luck.

dj


On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 12:01 PM, emijrp  wrote:

> Great Dariusz : ) I will launch the Journal of Wikis project and I will
> learn a lot. It won't be just a journal in the old sense, it will be
> something new.
>
> I remember when people on this mailing list talked during years about a
> way to compile wiki literature, but no advances were done. Until I decided
> to create WikiPapers.
>
> I don't care about making mistakes, I care about discussing these topics
> in a loop for years.
>
>
> 2012/11/2 Dariusz Jemielniak 
>
>> Not my case, but I understand that there are people in that situation.
>>> This story was the same in 2001, when people thought that only an
>>> expert-written encyclopedia with very rigid methods would be successful.
>>>
>>
>> Good for you, but it is somewhat irrelevant. I'd speculate that possibly
>> even most of the academic journals' production is done by people who do
>> have to care where they publish. Per comparing the situation to Wikipedia
>> in 2001, I want to firmly state that oranges are much better than apples.
>>
>>
>>> Entering the journal rankings is based on citation numbers, right? I did
>>> this suggest thinking on the valuable researchers in this list, which may
>>> be interested in publishing/peer-reviewing stuff in the journal. Won't you
>>> cite that papers?
>>>
>>
>> The JCR journal ranking, which so far is the only one that matters (in
>> spite of its major flaws, methodological issues, etc.), bases on the number
>> of citations counted ONLY in other journals already listed in it.
>>
>> But there are also threshold requirements to be even considered for JCR
>> ranking, and obviously a double-blind peer reviews is a must. For practical
>> reasons of indexing, paper redistribution, etc., PDFs and numbered pages
>> also make life of a person who wants to cite a paper much easier.
>>
>> While I support your idea in principle, I think that it requires much
>> more effort, planning, and understanding of how academic publishing and
>> career paths actually work, than in the concept of "all we need is wiki".
>>
>> cheers,
>>
>> dj
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada
> http://LibreFind.org - The wiki search engine
>
>
>


-- 

__
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
profesor zarządzania
kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
i centrum badawczego CROW
Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki Research Jounal…

[Pierre-Carl Langlais]

One idea would be to appoint one or several volunteer editor(s). They  
could ensure all the formal and administrative aspects of the journal:  
receiving and anonymizing the propositions, publishing them on the  
wiki, editing the final Wiki and PDF versions, keep in touch with ISI  
and other evaluation system and so on…


@emirjp : well you can already count me in :)

Not my case, but I understand that there are people in that  
situation. This story was the same in 2001, when people thought that  
only an expert-written encyclopedia with very rigid methods would be  
successful.


Good for you, but it is somewhat irrelevant. I'd speculate that  
possibly even most of the academic journals' production is done by  
people who do have to care where they publish. Per comparing the  
situation to Wikipedia in 2001, I want to firmly state that oranges  
are much better than apples.


Entering the journal rankings is based on citation numbers, right? I  
did this suggest thinking on the valuable researchers in this list,  
which may be interested in publishing/peer-reviewing stuff in the  
journal. Won't you cite that papers?


The JCR journal ranking, which so far is the only one that matters  
(in spite of its major flaws, methodological issues, etc.), bases on  
the number of citations counted ONLY in other journals already  
listed in it.


But there are also threshold requirements to be even considered for  
JCR ranking, and obviously a double-blind peer reviews is a must.  
For practical reasons of indexing, paper redistribution, etc., PDFs  
and numbered pages also make life of a person who wants to cite a  
paper much easier.


While I support your idea in principle, I think that it requires  
much more effort, planning, and understanding of how academic  
publishing and career paths actually work, than in the concept of  
"all we need is wiki".


cheers,

dj
___
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] Wiki Research Jounal…

[emijrp]

Great Dariusz : ) I will launch the Journal of Wikis project and I will
learn a lot. It won't be just a journal in the old sense, it will be
something new.

I remember when people on this mailing list talked during years about a way
to compile wiki literature, but no advances were done. Until I decided to
create WikiPapers.

I don't care about making mistakes, I care about discussing these topics in
a loop for years.

2012/11/2 Dariusz Jemielniak 

> Not my case, but I understand that there are people in that situation.
>> This story was the same in 2001, when people thought that only an
>> expert-written encyclopedia with very rigid methods would be successful.
>>
>
> Good for you, but it is somewhat irrelevant. I'd speculate that possibly
> even most of the academic journals' production is done by people who do
> have to care where they publish. Per comparing the situation to Wikipedia
> in 2001, I want to firmly state that oranges are much better than apples.
>
>
>> Entering the journal rankings is based on citation numbers, right? I did
>> this suggest thinking on the valuable researchers in this list, which may
>> be interested in publishing/peer-reviewing stuff in the journal. Won't you
>> cite that papers?
>>
>
> The JCR journal ranking, which so far is the only one that matters (in
> spite of its major flaws, methodological issues, etc.), bases on the number
> of citations counted ONLY in other journals already listed in it.
>
> But there are also threshold requirements to be even considered for JCR
> ranking, and obviously a double-blind peer reviews is a must. For practical
> reasons of indexing, paper redistribution, etc., PDFs and numbered pages
> also make life of a person who wants to cite a paper much easier.
>
> While I support your idea in principle, I think that it requires much more
> effort, planning, and understanding of how academic publishing and career
> paths actually work, than in the concept of "all we need is wiki".
>
> cheers,
>
> dj
>



-- 
Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada
http://LibreFind.org - The wiki search engine
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki Research Jounal…

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

>
> Not my case, but I understand that there are people in that situation.
> This story was the same in 2001, when people thought that only an
> expert-written encyclopedia with very rigid methods would be successful.
>

Good for you, but it is somewhat irrelevant. I'd speculate that possibly
even most of the academic journals' production is done by people who do
have to care where they publish. Per comparing the situation to Wikipedia
in 2001, I want to firmly state that oranges are much better than apples.


> Entering the journal rankings is based on citation numbers, right? I did
> this suggest thinking on the valuable researchers in this list, which may
> be interested in publishing/peer-reviewing stuff in the journal. Won't you
> cite that papers?
>

The JCR journal ranking, which so far is the only one that matters (in
spite of its major flaws, methodological issues, etc.), bases on the number
of citations counted ONLY in other journals already listed in it.

But there are also threshold requirements to be even considered for JCR
ranking, and obviously a double-blind peer reviews is a must. For practical
reasons of indexing, paper redistribution, etc., PDFs and numbered pages
also make life of a person who wants to cite a paper much easier.

While I support your idea in principle, I think that it requires much more
effort, planning, and understanding of how academic publishing and career
paths actually work, than in the concept of "all we need is wiki".

cheers,

dj
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki Research Jounal…

[emijrp]

2012/11/2 Dariusz Jemielniak 

> unfortunately, if you want to make impact in the Academia, the approach of
> "all we need is a wiki" will not work. Even the most avid enthusiasts of
> open publication models and of wiki usually do have career-paths, tenure
> reviews, etc.


Not my case, but I understand that there are people in that situation. This
story was the same in 2001, when people thought that only an expert-written
encyclopedia with very rigid methods would be successful.


> As long as reality is as it is now, we'd have to have a "proper" journal,
> with PDFs, page numbers, etc., and an aim to enter the journal rankings,
> because otherwise the top researchers will have a strong incentive not to
> even consider our journal in their publications.


Entering the journal rankings is based on citation numbers, right? I did
this suggest thinking on the valuable researchers in this list, which may
be interested in publishing/peer-reviewing stuff in the journal. Won't you
cite that papers?


>
> best,
>
> dj
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:42 AM, emijrp  wrote:
>
>> Yes, I think that it is important to focus in the wikis topic. It is so
>> broad that hardly would need more than that, I neither understand the
>> WikiSym move to OpenSym.
>>
>> But not only a new journal, we have an opportunity to create a more open
>> publication model, using a... wiki for all the steps (writing,
>> peer-reviewing and final publication).
>>
>> I see this project like a big experiment. All we need is a wiki, some
>> volunteers to write papers and some volunteers to peer-review them. After a
>> year of work, we can publish all the "approved" papers as the Journal of
>> Wikis, Vol. 1, Issue 1.
>>
>> Volunteers?
>>
>>
>>
>> 2012/11/2 Piotr Konieczny 
>>
>>>  This is not a list for researching collaboration support software,
>>> this is a list for discussing one specific type of it, the wikis (with a
>>> focus on Wikipedia). I see nothing wrong with retaining this focus, and I
>>> am surprised that the rather successful WikiSym is trying to reframe
>>> itself. Perhaps it makes sense for a conference, although I am not
>>> convinced. For journal, there is certainly a scope for a (the...) journal
>>> limited to wiki studies. There is already a number of journals dedicated to
>>> collaboration support software (International Journal of Computer-Supported
>>> Collaborative Learning - http://ijcscl.org/ ; International Journal of
>>> e-Collaboration -
>>> http://www.igi-global.com/journal/international-journal-collaboration-ijec/1090;
>>>  The Journal of Collaborative Computing and Work Practices -
>>> http://www.springer.com/computer/journal/10606), plus some more broad
>>> journals on collaboration (International Journal of Collaborative Practices
>>> - http://collaborative-practices.com/ ; Journal of collaboration -
>>> http://www.springerlink.com/content/g22377427w636731/). Starting an
>>> n-th journal on that topic seems rather pointless to me, the only redeeming
>>> grace would be that ours would be open source (most others are closed).
>>> Much better, IMHO, to start the FIRST journal of wiki studies. A more
>>> narrow field, yes, but much more badly in need of a journal than the
>>> broader field of collaboration support software, which already has several
>>> related journals.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Piotr Konieczny
>>>
>>> "To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on 
>>> one's laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski
>>>
>>> On 11/1/2012 2:21 PM, Aaron Halfaker wrote:
>>>
>>> > I'd suggest focusing on the area of wiki studies, nothing more and
>>> nothing less.
>>>
>>>  I don't think that this is a good strategy.  Wiki's are just one type
>>> of collaboration support software.  What if the artifact of collaboration
>>> is not hypertext?  Most people would not consider a open source code
>>> repository to be a "wiki" without doing some stretching, but as far as the
>>> contribution model goes, it is nearly the same.
>>>
>>>  Recently, the steering committee of WikiSym became aware of the
>>> problem of branding the conference around a single open collaboration
>>> technology and has started a transition from "WikiSym" to "OpenSym".
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Piotr Konieczny  wrote:
>>>
 On 11/1/2012 7:45 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais wrote:

>
> *Technical issue : we probably need a specific wiki. Whereas not
> highly sophisticated, it should perhaps include some reading functions in
> order to make the journal main content easy to read and to refer to.
>
  What's wrong with hosting it at one of WMF wikis? Meta or Wikiversity
 seem rather appropriate?


  *Scientific issue : the journal requires rather a broad and definite
> general thematic, in order to receive diverse and, yet, coherent
> submissions. Perhaps a focus on epistemological topics (open access...) or
> communication topics (wiki-system and so on...) could deem appropria

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki Research Jounal…

[Manuel Palomo Duarte]

+1

Let me add that the peer-reviewing system is a must, but not enough by
itself for considering the magazine an addition to science. There is
another important fact: who reviews the papers?

If a groups of enthusiastic but non-experienced, non-expert in research
people review the submissions, what could be the result? A poor journal
with little interest for academia ...



2012/11/2 Dariusz Jemielniak 

> unfortunately, if you want to make impact in the Academia, the approach of
> "all we need is a wiki" will not work. Even the most avid enthusiasts of
> open publication models and of wiki usually do have career-paths, tenure
> reviews, etc. As long as reality is as it is now, we'd have to have a
> "proper" journal, with PDFs, page numbers, etc., and an aim to enter the
> journal rankings, because otherwise the top researchers will have a strong
> incentive not to even consider our journal in their publications.
>
> best,
>
> dj
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:42 AM, emijrp  wrote:
>
>> Yes, I think that it is important to focus in the wikis topic. It is so
>> broad that hardly would need more than that, I neither understand the
>> WikiSym move to OpenSym.
>>
>> But not only a new journal, we have an opportunity to create a more open
>> publication model, using a... wiki for all the steps (writing,
>> peer-reviewing and final publication).
>>
>> I see this project like a big experiment. All we need is a wiki, some
>> volunteers to write papers and some volunteers to peer-review them. After a
>> year of work, we can publish all the "approved" papers as the Journal of
>> Wikis, Vol. 1, Issue 1.
>>
>> Volunteers?
>>
>>
>>
>> 2012/11/2 Piotr Konieczny 
>>
>>>  This is not a list for researching collaboration support software,
>>> this is a list for discussing one specific type of it, the wikis (with a
>>> focus on Wikipedia). I see nothing wrong with retaining this focus, and I
>>> am surprised that the rather successful WikiSym is trying to reframe
>>> itself. Perhaps it makes sense for a conference, although I am not
>>> convinced. For journal, there is certainly a scope for a (the...) journal
>>> limited to wiki studies. There is already a number of journals dedicated to
>>> collaboration support software (International Journal of Computer-Supported
>>> Collaborative Learning - http://ijcscl.org/ ; International Journal of
>>> e-Collaboration -
>>> http://www.igi-global.com/journal/international-journal-collaboration-ijec/1090;
>>>  The Journal of Collaborative Computing and Work Practices -
>>> http://www.springer.com/computer/journal/10606), plus some more broad
>>> journals on collaboration (International Journal of Collaborative Practices
>>> - http://collaborative-practices.com/ ; Journal of collaboration -
>>> http://www.springerlink.com/content/g22377427w636731/). Starting an
>>> n-th journal on that topic seems rather pointless to me, the only redeeming
>>> grace would be that ours would be open source (most others are closed).
>>> Much better, IMHO, to start the FIRST journal of wiki studies. A more
>>> narrow field, yes, but much more badly in need of a journal than the
>>> broader field of collaboration support software, which already has several
>>> related journals.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Piotr Konieczny
>>>
>>> "To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on 
>>> one's laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski
>>>
>>> On 11/1/2012 2:21 PM, Aaron Halfaker wrote:
>>>
>>> > I'd suggest focusing on the area of wiki studies, nothing more and
>>> nothing less.
>>>
>>>  I don't think that this is a good strategy.  Wiki's are just one type
>>> of collaboration support software.  What if the artifact of collaboration
>>> is not hypertext?  Most people would not consider a open source code
>>> repository to be a "wiki" without doing some stretching, but as far as the
>>> contribution model goes, it is nearly the same.
>>>
>>>  Recently, the steering committee of WikiSym became aware of the
>>> problem of branding the conference around a single open collaboration
>>> technology and has started a transition from "WikiSym" to "OpenSym".
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Piotr Konieczny  wrote:
>>>
 On 11/1/2012 7:45 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais wrote:

>
> *Technical issue : we probably need a specific wiki. Whereas not
> highly sophisticated, it should perhaps include some reading functions in
> order to make the journal main content easy to read and to refer to.
>
  What's wrong with hosting it at one of WMF wikis? Meta or Wikiversity
 seem rather appropriate?


  *Scientific issue : the journal requires rather a broad and definite
> general thematic, in order to receive diverse and, yet, coherent
> submissions. Perhaps a focus on epistemological topics (open access…) or
> communication topics (wiki-system and so on…) could deem appropriate, as 
> it
> would allow to go beyond disciplinary barriers.
>

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki Research Jounal…

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

unfortunately, if you want to make impact in the Academia, the approach of
"all we need is a wiki" will not work. Even the most avid enthusiasts of
open publication models and of wiki usually do have career-paths, tenure
reviews, etc. As long as reality is as it is now, we'd have to have a
"proper" journal, with PDFs, page numbers, etc., and an aim to enter the
journal rankings, because otherwise the top researchers will have a strong
incentive not to even consider our journal in their publications.

best,

dj


On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:42 AM, emijrp  wrote:

> Yes, I think that it is important to focus in the wikis topic. It is so
> broad that hardly would need more than that, I neither understand the
> WikiSym move to OpenSym.
>
> But not only a new journal, we have an opportunity to create a more open
> publication model, using a... wiki for all the steps (writing,
> peer-reviewing and final publication).
>
> I see this project like a big experiment. All we need is a wiki, some
> volunteers to write papers and some volunteers to peer-review them. After a
> year of work, we can publish all the "approved" papers as the Journal of
> Wikis, Vol. 1, Issue 1.
>
> Volunteers?
>
>
>
> 2012/11/2 Piotr Konieczny 
>
>>  This is not a list for researching collaboration support software, this
>> is a list for discussing one specific type of it, the wikis (with a focus
>> on Wikipedia). I see nothing wrong with retaining this focus, and I am
>> surprised that the rather successful WikiSym is trying to reframe itself.
>> Perhaps it makes sense for a conference, although I am not convinced. For
>> journal, there is certainly a scope for a (the...) journal limited to wiki
>> studies. There is already a number of journals dedicated to collaboration
>> support software (International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative
>> Learning - http://ijcscl.org/ ; International Journal of e-Collaboration
>> -
>> http://www.igi-global.com/journal/international-journal-collaboration-ijec/1090;
>>  The Journal of Collaborative Computing and Work Practices -
>> http://www.springer.com/computer/journal/10606), plus some more broad
>> journals on collaboration (International Journal of Collaborative Practices
>> - http://collaborative-practices.com/ ; Journal of collaboration -
>> http://www.springerlink.com/content/g22377427w636731/). Starting an n-th
>> journal on that topic seems rather pointless to me, the only redeeming
>> grace would be that ours would be open source (most others are closed).
>> Much better, IMHO, to start the FIRST journal of wiki studies. A more
>> narrow field, yes, but much more badly in need of a journal than the
>> broader field of collaboration support software, which already has several
>> related journals.
>>
>> --
>> Piotr Konieczny
>>
>> "To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on 
>> one's laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski
>>
>> On 11/1/2012 2:21 PM, Aaron Halfaker wrote:
>>
>> > I'd suggest focusing on the area of wiki studies, nothing more and
>> nothing less.
>>
>>  I don't think that this is a good strategy.  Wiki's are just one type
>> of collaboration support software.  What if the artifact of collaboration
>> is not hypertext?  Most people would not consider a open source code
>> repository to be a "wiki" without doing some stretching, but as far as the
>> contribution model goes, it is nearly the same.
>>
>>  Recently, the steering committee of WikiSym became aware of the problem
>> of branding the conference around a single open collaboration technology
>> and has started a transition from "WikiSym" to "OpenSym".
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Piotr Konieczny  wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/1/2012 7:45 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais wrote:
>>>

 *Technical issue : we probably need a specific wiki. Whereas not highly
 sophisticated, it should perhaps include some reading functions in order to
 make the journal main content easy to read and to refer to.

>>>  What's wrong with hosting it at one of WMF wikis? Meta or Wikiversity
>>> seem rather appropriate?
>>>
>>>
>>>  *Scientific issue : the journal requires rather a broad and definite
 general thematic, in order to receive diverse and, yet, coherent
 submissions. Perhaps a focus on epistemological topics (open access...) or
 communication topics (wiki-system and so on...) could deem appropriate, as 
 it
 would allow to go beyond disciplinary barriers.

>>>
>>>  I'd suggest focusing on the area of wiki studies, nothing more and
>>> nothing less.
>>>
>>>
>>>  *Financial issue : a small grant from the WMF would be enough to start.
 As the journal is to rely on volunteer work, all we have to do is to ensure
 the technical bare necessities.


>>>  WMF grants procedure is here:
>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Index
>>> Through I am not sure what costs would involved, if it is hosted at a
>>> WMF wiki, and run by volunteers.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Pio

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki Research Jounal…

[emijrp]

Yes, I think that it is important to focus in the wikis topic. It is so
broad that hardly would need more than that, I neither understand the
WikiSym move to OpenSym.

But not only a new journal, we have an opportunity to create a more open
publication model, using a... wiki for all the steps (writing,
peer-reviewing and final publication).

I see this project like a big experiment. All we need is a wiki, some
volunteers to write papers and some volunteers to peer-review them. After a
year of work, we can publish all the "approved" papers as the Journal of
Wikis, Vol. 1, Issue 1.

Volunteers?



2012/11/2 Piotr Konieczny 

>  This is not a list for researching collaboration support software, this
> is a list for discussing one specific type of it, the wikis (with a focus
> on Wikipedia). I see nothing wrong with retaining this focus, and I am
> surprised that the rather successful WikiSym is trying to reframe itself.
> Perhaps it makes sense for a conference, although I am not convinced. For
> journal, there is certainly a scope for a (the...) journal limited to wiki
> studies. There is already a number of journals dedicated to collaboration
> support software (International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative
> Learning - http://ijcscl.org/ ; International Journal of e-Collaboration
> -
> http://www.igi-global.com/journal/international-journal-collaboration-ijec/1090;
>  The Journal of Collaborative Computing and Work Practices -
> http://www.springer.com/computer/journal/10606), plus some more broad
> journals on collaboration (International Journal of Collaborative Practices
> - http://collaborative-practices.com/ ; Journal of collaboration -
> http://www.springerlink.com/content/g22377427w636731/). Starting an n-th
> journal on that topic seems rather pointless to me, the only redeeming
> grace would be that ours would be open source (most others are closed).
> Much better, IMHO, to start the FIRST journal of wiki studies. A more
> narrow field, yes, but much more badly in need of a journal than the
> broader field of collaboration support software, which already has several
> related journals.
>
> --
> Piotr Konieczny
>
> "To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on 
> one's laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski
>
> On 11/1/2012 2:21 PM, Aaron Halfaker wrote:
>
> > I'd suggest focusing on the area of wiki studies, nothing more and
> nothing less.
>
>  I don't think that this is a good strategy.  Wiki's are just one type of
> collaboration support software.  What if the artifact of collaboration is
> not hypertext?  Most people would not consider a open source code
> repository to be a "wiki" without doing some stretching, but as far as the
> contribution model goes, it is nearly the same.
>
>  Recently, the steering committee of WikiSym became aware of the problem
> of branding the conference around a single open collaboration technology
> and has started a transition from "WikiSym" to "OpenSym".
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Piotr Konieczny  wrote:
>
>> On 11/1/2012 7:45 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> *Technical issue : we probably need a specific wiki. Whereas not highly
>>> sophisticated, it should perhaps include some reading functions in order to
>>> make the journal main content easy to read and to refer to.
>>>
>>  What's wrong with hosting it at one of WMF wikis? Meta or Wikiversity
>> seem rather appropriate?
>>
>>
>>  *Scientific issue : the journal requires rather a broad and definite
>>> general thematic, in order to receive diverse and, yet, coherent
>>> submissions. Perhaps a focus on epistemological topics (open access…) or
>>> communication topics (wiki-system and so on…) could deem appropriate, as it
>>> would allow to go beyond disciplinary barriers.
>>>
>>
>>  I'd suggest focusing on the area of wiki studies, nothing more and
>> nothing less.
>>
>>
>>  *Financial issue : a small grant from the WMF would be enough to start.
>>> As the journal is to rely on volunteer work, all we have to do is to ensure
>>> the technical bare necessities.
>>>
>>>
>>  WMF grants procedure is here:
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Index
>> Through I am not sure what costs would involved, if it is hosted at a WMF
>> wiki, and run by volunteers.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Piotr Konieczny
>>
>> "To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on
>> one's laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>
>
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing 
> listWiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailma