Re: [Wiki-research-l] Joining derp?
Also some coverage here in the Economist: http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2014/09/science-web On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 3:32 AM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: Has this been considered? It seems to apply to us in many ways. http://news.yahoo.com/course-reddit-imgur-named-research-institute-derp-142950548.html ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l -- Brian C. Keegan, Ph.D. Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, Lazer Lab College of Social Sciences and Humanities, Northeastern University Fellow, Institute for Quantitative Social Sciences, Harvard University Affiliate, Berkman Center for Internet Society, Harvard Law School b.kee...@neu.edu www.brianckeegan.com M: 617.803.6971 O: 617.373.7200 Skype: bckeegan ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Kill the bots
Thanks for all the references and excellent advice so far! I've looked into the Hale Anti-Bot Method™, but because I've sampled my corpus on articles (based on category co-membership), the resulting groupby users gives these semi-automated users more normal distributions since their other contributions are censored. In other words, I see only a fraction of these users' contributions and thus the resulting time intervals I observe are spaced farther apart (more typical) than they actually are. It's not feasible for me to get 100k+ users' histories just for the purposes of cleaning up ~6k articles' histories. Another thought I had was that because many semi-automated tools such as Twinkle and AWB leave parenthetical annotations in their revision comments, would this be a relatively inexpensive way to filter out revisions rather than users? Some caveats, I'd like to get domain experts' feedback on. I'm not expecting settled research, just input from others' experiences munging the data. 1. Is the inclusion of this markup in revision comments optional? This is a concern that some users may enable or disable it, so I may end up biasing inclusion based on users' preferences. 2. How have these flags or markup changed over time? This is a concern that Twinke/AWB/etc. may have started/stopped including flags or changed what they included over time. 3. Are there other API queries or data elsewhere I could use to identify (semi-)automated revisions? On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.comwrote: Brian Keegan, 18/05/2014 18:10: Is there a way to retrieve a canonical list of bots on enwiki or elsewhere? A Bots.csv list exists. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikistat_csv In general: please edit https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Research:Identifying_bot_accounts Nemo ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l -- Brian C. Keegan, Ph.D. Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, Lazer Lab College of Social Sciences and Humanities, Northeastern University Fellow, Institute for Quantitative Social Sciences, Harvard University Affiliate, Berkman Center for Internet Society, Harvard Law School b.kee...@neu.edu www.brianckeegan.com M: 617.803.6971 O: 617.373.7200 Skype: bckeegan ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
[Wiki-research-l] Kill the bots
Is there a way to retrieve a canonical list of bots on enwiki or elsewhere? I'm interested in omitting automated revisions (sorry Stuart!) for the purposes of building co-authorship networks. Grabbing everything under 'Category:All Wikipedia bots' excludes some major ones like SmackBot, Cydebot, VIAFbot, Full-date unlinking bot, etc. because these bots have changed names but the redirect is not categorized, the account has been removed/deprecated, or a user appears to have removed the relevant bot categories from the page. Can anyone advise me on how to kill all the bots in my data without having to resort to manual cleaning or hacky regex? -- Brian C. Keegan, Ph.D. Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, Lazer Lab College of Social Sciences and Humanities, Northeastern University Fellow, Institute for Quantitative Social Sciences, Harvard University Affiliate, Berkman Center for Internet Society, Harvard Law School b.kee...@neu.edu www.brianckeegan.com M: 617.803.6971 O: 617.373.7200 Skype: bckeegan ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Kill the bots
How does one cite emails in ACM proceedings format? :) On Sunday, May 18, 2014, R.Stuart Geiger sgei...@gmail.com wrote: Tsk tsk tsk, Brian. When the revolution comes, bot discriminators will get no mercy. :-) But seriously, my tl;dr: instead of asking if an account is or isn't a bot, ask if a set of edits are or are not automated Great responses so far: searching usernames for *bot will exclude non-bot users who were registered before the username policy change (although *Bot is a bit better), and the logging table is a great way to collect bot flags. However, Scott is right -- the bot flag (or *Bot username) doesn't signify a bot, it signifies a bureaucrat recognizing that a user account successfully went through the Bot Approval Group process. If I see an account with a bot flag, I can generally assume the edits that account makes are initiated by an automated software agent. This is especially the case in the main namespace. The inverse assumption is not nearly as easy: I can't assume that every edit made from an account *without* a bot flag was *not* an automated edit. About unauthorized bots: yes, there are a relatively small number of Wikipedians who, on occasion, run fully-automated, continuously-operating bots without approval. Complicating this, if someone is going to take the time to build and run a bot, but isn't going to create a separate account for it, then it is likely that they are also using that account to do non-automated edits. Sometimes new bot developers will run an unauthorized bot under their own account during the initial stages of development, and only later in the process will they create a separate bot account and seek formal approval and flagging. It can get tricky when you exclude all the edits from an account for being automated based on a single suspicious set of edits. More commonly, there are many more people who use automated batch tools like AutoWikiBrowser to support one-off tasks, like mass find-and-replace or category cleanup. Accounts powered by AWB are technically not bots, only because a human has to sit there and click save for every batch edit that is made. Some people will create a separate bot account for AWB work and get it approved and flagged, but many more will not bother. Then there are people using semi-automated, human-in-the-loop tools like Huggle to do vandal fighting. I find that the really hard question is whether you include or exclude these different kinds of 'cyborgs', because it really makes you think hard about what exactly you're measuring. Is someone who does a mass find-and-replace on all articles in a category a co-author of each article they edit? Is a vandal fighter patrolling the recent changes feed with Huggle a co-author of all the articles they edit when they revert vandalism and then move on to the next diff? What about somebody using rollback in the web browser? If so, what is it that makes these entities authors and ClueBot NG not an author? When you think about it, user accounts are actually pretty remarkable in that they allow such a diverse set of uses and agents to be attributed to a single entity. So when it comes to identifying automation, I personally think it is better to shift the unit of analysis from the user account to the individual edit. A bot flag lets you assume all edits from an account are automated, but you can use a range of approaches to identifying sets of automated edits from non-flagged accounts. Then I have a set of regex SQL queries in the Query Library [1] which parses edit summaries for the traces that AWB, Huggle, Twinkle, rollback, etc. automatically leave by default. You can also use the edit session approach like Scott has suggested -- Aaron and I found a few unauthorized bots in our edit session study [2], and we were even using a more aggressive break, with no more than a 60 minute gap between edits. To catch short bursts of bulk edits, you could look at large numbers of edits made in a short period of time -- I'd say more than 7 main namespace edits a minute for 10 minutes would be a hard rate for even a very aggressive vandal fighter to maintain with Huggle. I'll conclude by saying that different kinds of automated editing techniques are different ways of participating in and contributing to Wikipedia. To systematically exclude automated edits is to remove a very important, meaningful, and heterogeneous kind of activity from view. These activities constitute a core part of what Wikipedia is, particularly those forms of automation which the community has explicitly authorized and recognized. Now, we researchers inevitably have to selectively reveal and occlude -- a co-authorship network based on main namespace edits also excludes talk page discussions and conflict resolution, and this also constitutes a core part of what Wikipedia is. It isn't wrong per se to exclude automated edits, and it is certainly much worse to not
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Polling the watcher's of a page. Possible?
Check out Michael Kummer's paper that looks at a similar topic (contagion in pageviews among linked articles) from an econometrics perspective: Spillovers in Networks of User Generated Content – Evidence from 23 Natural Experiments on Wikipedia http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2356199 On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 9:42 PM, Kerry Raymond kerry.raym...@gmail.comwrote: No, you can’t for reasons on privacy. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Watching_pages#Privacy But, I concur with your theory that edits are contagious. I often find that when I get the notification that a watched page has changed, I go and look at the page. While I am there, I often spot a “little thing that needs doing”, which sometimes is just a simple single edit and other times initiates a marathon of editing activity for the next couple of days J If you want to test this theory, I think using at the set of editors of the page might be a pretty good approximation of the watchlist. A lot of people have the “add the pages and files I edit to my watchlist” set in their preferences (I know I do). For the purpose of declaring one edit as being contagious (that is, causes another edit), what criteria would you use? I would assume you need some time bounds here. I think there needs to be “kick-off” edits identified. These would be edits that occurred sufficiently long after the previous edit that contagion could not be factor. Then after the kick-off edit, you would be looking for one or more “reaction” edits that occurred fairly quickly after one another, suggesting a contagion based on watchlists. So it seems there are two time parameters: the kick-off threshold and the reaction threshold. I don’t think these are necessarily the same value (i.e. is there is some grey zone in-between where the edits can be categorised as neither kick-off nor reaction?). In terms of setting these threshold(s), you might need some real-life data to train on. So maybe you could start by asking if some editors would send you a copy of their watchlist and you could write a script that compared it with their edit history over the same time frame (plus a bit to cater for bursty-ness). From that you could come up with a set of edits that look like contagious ones and you could ask the editors to say “yes / no / don’t remember” to try to see if 1) contagion appears to be happening 2) what the time thresholds need to be. Then test it on a bigger set of data using edit history as a proxy for watchlists. Kerry -- *From:* wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto: wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of *Klein,Max *Sent:* Tuesday, 31 December 2013 2:26 PM *To:* wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org *Subject:* [Wiki-research-l] Polling the watcher's of a page. Possible? Hello Research, It it possible to query for the watchers of a page? It does not seem to be in the API, nor is the watchers or wl_user table in the Data Base replicas (where I thought MediaWiki stores it. I imagine this is for privacy reasons, correct? If so, how would one gain access? I have been talking with an econophysicist who thinks that we could apply a contagion algorithm, to see which edits are contagious. (I met this econopyhicist at the Berkeley Data Science Faire at which Wikimedia Analytics presented, so it was worth it in the end). Maximilian Klein Wikipedian in Residence, OCLC +17074787023 ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l -- Brian C. Keegan, Ph.D. Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, Lazer Lab College of Social Sciences and Humanities, Northeastern University Fellow, Institute for Quantitative Social Sciences, Harvard University Affiliate, Berkman Center for Internet Society, Harvard Law School b.kee...@neu.edu www.brianckeegan.com M: 617.803.6971 O: 617.373.7200 Skype: bckeegan ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
[Wiki-research-l] CFP: ICWSM 2014
THE 8TH INTERNATIONAL AAAI CONFERENCE ON WEBLOGS AND SOCIAL MEDIA (ICWSM-14) SPONSORED BY THE ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE * Abstracts Due: January 15, 2014 (by 11:59 pm PST) * Full Papers Due: January 22, 2014 (by 11:59 pm PST) * Acceptance Notification: March 10, 2014 * Conference: June 1-4, 2014 in Ann Arbor, Michigan The International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM) is a forum for researchers in computer science and social science to come together to share knowledge, discuss ideas, exchange information, and learn about cutting-edge research in diverse fields with the common theme of online social media. This overall theme includes research in new perspectives in social theories, as well as computational algorithms for analyzing social media. ICWSM is a singularly fitting venue for research that blends social science and computational approaches to answer important and challenging questions about human social behavior through social media while advancing computational tools for vast and unstructured data. ICWSM, now in its eighth year, has become one of the premier venues for computational social science, and previous years of ICWSM have featured papers, posters, and demos that draw upon network science, machine learning, computational linguistics, sociology, communication, and political science. The uniqueness of the venue and the quality of submissions have contributed to a fast growth of the conference and a competitive acceptance rate of 20% for full-length research papers published in the proceedings by the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI). For ICWSM-14, in addition to the usual program of contributed technical talks, posters and invited presentations, the main conference will include a selection of keynote talks from prominent social scientists and technologists. Building on successes in previous years, ICWSM-14 will also hold a day of workshops and tutorials in addition to the main conference. SUMMARY SUBMISSION GUIDELINE Full paper format: Full paper submissions to ICWSM are recommended to be 8 pages long, and must be at most 10 pages long, including figures and references. The final camera-ready length (between 8-10 pages) for each full paper in the proceedings will be at the discretion of the program chairs. All papers must follow AAAI formatting guidelines. Poster and demo paper format: Poster paper submissions to ICWSM must be 4 pages long, including figures and references. Demo paper submissions to ICWSM must be 2 pages long, including figures and references. All papers must be follow AAAI formatting guidelines. Anonymity: Paper submissions to ICWSM must be anonymized. Social science track with only abstracts in the proceedings: We will be continuing the “social science” track at ICWSM-14 following its successful debut in 2013. This option is for researchers in social science who wish to submit full papers without publication in the conference proceedings. While papers in this track will not be published, we expect these submissions to describe the same high-quality and complete work as the main track submissions. Papers accepted to this track will be full presentations integrated with the conference, but they will be published only as abstracts in the conference proceedings. DISCIPLINES * Computational approaches to social media research including * Natural language processing * Text / data mining * Machine learning * Image / multimedia processing * Graphics and visualization * Distributed computing * Graph theory and graphical models * Human-computer interaction * Social science approaches to social media research including * Psychology * Sociology and social network analysis * Communication * Political science * Economics * Anthropology * Media studies and journalism * Interdisciplinary approaches to social media research combining computational algorithms and social science methodologies TYPES OF SOCIAL MEDIA include * Weblogs (posts, comments, and/or social shares) * Social networking sites (e.g., Facebook, LinkedIn) * Microblogs (e.g., Twitter, Tumblr) * Wiki-based knowledge sharing sites (e.g., Wikipedia) * Social news sites and websites of news media (e.g., Huffington Post) * Forums, mailing lists, newsgroups * Community media sites (e.g., YouTube, Flickr, Instagram) * Social Q A sites (e.g., Quora, Yahoo Answers) * User reviews (e.g., Yelp, Amazon.com) * Social curation sites (e.g., Reddit, Pinterest) * Location-based social networks (e.g., Foursquare) TOPICS INCLUDE (BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO) * Psychological, personality-based and ethnographic studies of social media * Analysis of the relationship between social media and mainstream media * Qualitative and quantitative studies of social media * Centrality/influence of social media publications and authors * Ranking/relevance of blogs and microblogs; web page ranking based on weblogs * Social
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki Research Journal? - Why?
I keep coming back to this same question Aaron's raised as well. Wiki is obviously the glue holding everything thematically as well as logistically together in the proposals I've seen here-to-for, but it seems nigh-impossible to assemble an editorial board that is simultaneously open and qualified to reviewing submissions that almost certainly cover the gamut from journalism and media studies, computer and information sciences, complex and network sciences, sociology and organizational behavior, business and economics, legal and policy studies, education and outreach. Any single issue risks incoherence including articles across all these fields and the possibility of having rotating special issues dedicated to any single domain for this Wiki-journal to ensure some coherence would seem to suggest simply organizing a special issue in pre-existing journals. It comes down to this: someone needs to clearly articulate why active wiki-researchers like myself should take the risk of publishing our research in a new journal when we potentially have higher-impact journals and better-tailored special issues as alternative and ready outlets. On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Aaron Halfaker aaron.halfa...@gmail.comwrote: So, if I can re-ignite and re-frame the original question I posed, - Why do we need a wiki journal if there are already high impact journals that are receptive to high quality wiki studies? -Aaron On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Manuel Palomo Duarte manuel.pal...@uca.es wrote: Nice post, Kerry. Let me add that the citation rates are calculated using the cites in reputated journals already indexed ... 2012/11/8 Kerry Raymond kerry.raym...@gmail.com Actually the reputation of journals is usually derived from its impact factor ** ** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor ** ** which is all about citation rates rather than acceptance/rejection rates. ** ** Acceptance rates are sometimes used for newer journals as citation rates aren’t available. But it doesn’t follow that a new journal must reject reasonable papers in order to achieve some desired acceptance rate. A new journal (properly advertised) will probably attract a lot of papers that have been rejected elsewhere so you probably end up with plenty of worthy-of-rejection material. ** ** There is no way to get an immediate “great reputation” for a new journal. But I think a clear focus on topic, a hard-working international editorial team, and a firm but fair reviewing process and reviewers will yield good-quality papers and will attract more good quality papers in response ** ** Kerry ** ** ** ** -- *From:* wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto: wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of *Aaron Halfaker *Sent:* Friday, 9 November 2012 1:51 AM *To:* Research into Wikimedia content and communities *Subject:* Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki Research Journal? - Why? ** ** Highly rated is an interesting property. One of the ways that a publication venue becomes highly rated is by being highly restrictive. In fact, the primary measurement of the quality of a publication venue is the acceptance rate of that conference. ** ** WikiSym is not considered highly rated because a high proportion of the submitted papers are accepted. Would a wiki journal be more restrictive in order to gain a highly rated status? ** ** I think it's interesting to ask why WikiSym needs improvement and why attendance has been falling. If a WikiSym is a wiki conference that is struggling to maintain participation, how might a wiki journal surmount such trouble? Assuming that the answer to my question above is yes, the wiki-journal would be more restrictive, how would such a journal gather more submissions than an established conference like WikiSym -- enough to both produce regular issues and maintain a high rejection rate? ** ** -Aaron ** ** On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Joe Corneli holtzerman...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Aaron Halfaker aaron.halfa...@gmail.com wrote: To state it plainly, why do we need yet another publication venue specific to wiki software? I think people want a highly rated publication venue. Also, «The reason why WikiSym is changing is for the same reason. People are not going to the conference! I think the attendance has been below 100 for some time now. That's not a sustainable number for the amount of work that goes into organizing a conference.» But what you're saying suggests that maybe work should be done to improve existing venues rather than creating a new one. ___ 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 Journal? - Why?
Some serious deliberation on identity and boundaries is also necessary. WikiSym in recent years has been criticized (fairly in my eyes as an author an PC member) as having significantly shifted from wiki-development and professional implementation to academic (English) Wikipedia studies. Is this just about Wikipedia, or MediaWiki, or any wiki? Will studies using non-wiki open collaboration and peer-production systems like crowdsourcing, citizen science, remixing, FLOSS development, etc. be allowed? There's a thousand slippery slopes absent a clear identity, mission, and goal. And to crucially re-iterate again, what is the competitive advantage of having a journal of wiki-studies when every field from legal studies to complex systems is clamoring to incorporate wiki research to serve their agendas shifting towards social, participatory, open, big approaches? I remain convinced that organizing wiki-scholars to edit special issues, perhaps even incorporating wiki-like processes into the review processes themselves to the extent editorial boards are open to it, will be far more fruitful use of scarce academic time and interest. On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Brian Keegan bkee...@northwestern.eduwrote: I keep coming back to this same question Aaron's raised as well. Wiki is obviously the glue holding everything thematically as well as logistically together in the proposals I've seen here-to-for, but it seems nigh-impossible to assemble an editorial board that is simultaneously open and qualified to reviewing submissions that almost certainly cover the gamut from journalism and media studies, computer and information sciences, complex and network sciences, sociology and organizational behavior, business and economics, legal and policy studies, education and outreach. Any single issue risks incoherence including articles across all these fields and the possibility of having rotating special issues dedicated to any single domain for this Wiki-journal to ensure some coherence would seem to suggest simply organizing a special issue in pre-existing journals. It comes down to this: someone needs to clearly articulate why active wiki-researchers like myself should take the risk of publishing our research in a new journal when we potentially have higher-impact journals and better-tailored special issues as alternative and ready outlets. On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Aaron Halfaker aaron.halfa...@gmail.comwrote: So, if I can re-ignite and re-frame the original question I posed, - Why do we need a wiki journal if there are already high impact journals that are receptive to high quality wiki studies? -Aaron On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Manuel Palomo Duarte manuel.pal...@uca.es wrote: Nice post, Kerry. Let me add that the citation rates are calculated using the cites in reputated journals already indexed ... 2012/11/8 Kerry Raymond kerry.raym...@gmail.com Actually the reputation of journals is usually derived from its impact factor ** ** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor ** ** which is all about citation rates rather than acceptance/rejection rates. ** ** Acceptance rates are sometimes used for newer journals as citation rates aren’t available. But it doesn’t follow that a new journal must reject reasonable papers in order to achieve some desired acceptance rate. A new journal (properly advertised) will probably attract a lot of papers that have been rejected elsewhere so you probably end up with plenty of worthy-of-rejection material. ** ** There is no way to get an immediate “great reputation” for a new journal. But I think a clear focus on topic, a hard-working international editorial team, and a firm but fair reviewing process and reviewers will yield good-quality papers and will attract more good quality papers in response ** ** Kerry ** ** ** ** -- *From:* wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto: wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of *Aaron Halfaker *Sent:* Friday, 9 November 2012 1:51 AM *To:* Research into Wikimedia content and communities *Subject:* Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki Research Journal? - Why? ** ** Highly rated is an interesting property. One of the ways that a publication venue becomes highly rated is by being highly restrictive. In fact, the primary measurement of the quality of a publication venue is the acceptance rate of that conference. ** ** WikiSym is not considered highly rated because a high proportion of the submitted papers are accepted. Would a wiki journal be more restrictive in order to gain a highly rated status? ** ** I think it's interesting to ask why WikiSym needs improvement and why attendance has been falling. If a WikiSym is a wiki conference that is struggling to maintain participation, how might a wiki journal surmount such trouble? Assuming
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki Research Jounal…
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 pio...@post.pl 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 emi...@gmail.com 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 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
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Introduction and a simple question
Joe Reagle's Good Faith Collaboration is an excellent alternative. On Sep 5, 2012 4:37 AM, Hrafn H Malmquist h...@hi.is wrote: Good day everyone My name is Hrafn Malmquist, I am an Icelandic student of library and information science at the University of Iceland, writing a master's thesis on the Icelandic Wikipedia (http://is.wikipedia.org) which I have personally actively contributed to for about six years (http://is.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notandi:Jabbi). It has currently 34,478 articles and a very active user base of probably less than 30 users. My approach is wholistic, recounting the general history of Wikipedia, the Icelandic Wikipedia, the statistical development and possibly conduct interviews with contributing users. Any pointers on interesting research - especially with regard to small language communities - would be well appriciated. In searching for sources on the general history of Wikipedia, the best overview I found is Andrew Lih's The Wikipedia Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wikipedia_Revolution). I find it to be interesting but incomplete and rather sloppy when it comes to citing sources. He should have finished it off with more care. Does anyone know of a better alternative? Best regards, Hrafn ___ 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] Social Network Analysis of Wikipedia
There's a good amount of research Jullien 2012 has an excellent (although by no means exhaustive) lit review of extant Wikipedia research including many network analysis papers: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2053597 Welser, et al. 2011 use network analysis approaches to identify and differentiate users social roles: http://www.connectedaction.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Welser.Cosley.plus_.Wiki_.Roles_.pdf Antin, et al. 2012 use some centrality-like metrics to measure the diversity of editing behavior: http://faculty.poly.edu/~onov/Antin_Chehsire_Nov_WPP_CSCW_2012.pdf Kane 2009 on how network position influences article quality: http://www.profkane.com/uploads/7/9/1/3/79137/kane_2009_ocisa.pdf Kane, et al. 2012 on how membership turnover/retention influences article quality: http://www.samransbotham.com/sites/default/files/RansbothamKane_WikiDemotion_2012_MISQ.pdf shameless self promotion Descriptive analysis of Wikipedia's response and networks to the 2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami: http://www.brianckeegan.com/papers/WikiSym11.pdf Developing a statistical model of whether Wikipedia collaborations as a bipartite network of editors and authors are more strongly influenced by features of editors or features of articles: http://www.brianckeegan.com/papers/CSCW12.pdf Developing a unipartite network of Wikipedia collaborations as document passing network among editors on a single article: http://www.brianckeegan.com/papers/WikiSym12.pdf On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Jeremy Foote foo...@purdue.edu wrote: I am a brand new Master's student at Purdue. For my Social Network Analysis class, I'm thinking about doing a project about whether a Wikipedian's centrality in a network can be used as a predictor of future participation. I've spent the afternoon looking for relevant literature. I found the very interesting Validity Issues in the Use of Social Network Analysis with Digital Trace Data by Howison, Wiggins, and Crowston and Network analysis of collaboration structure in Wikipedia by Brandes et al. I'm wondering if there are other papers about how to translate Wikipedia into a network structure, or even more specifically relating to node-level centrality measures and participation measures. Very many thanks, Jeremy Foote ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l -- Brian C. Keegan Ph.D. Student - Media, Technology, Society School of Communication, Northwestern University Science of Networks in Communities, Laboratory for Collaborative Technology ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wikipedia's response to 2012 Aurora shooting
on scalability at the moment). It'd be interesting to study how enabling reader feedback affects the collaborative dynamics of breaking news articles, especially semi-protected ones on which anonymous contributors don't have a voice. ** ** Dario ** ** ** ** ** ** On Jul 21, 2012, at 5:06 PM, WereSpielChequers wrote: It is currently semiprotected, there were IP edits when it was first created. But according to the logs it was fully protected for a while due to IP vandalism. However the edit history only shows it going to semi protection, but there were some moves which have complicated things ** ** WSC On 21 July 2012 22:46, Taha Yasseri taha.yas...@gmail.com wrote: Ok! the page is protected. Sorry! ** ** On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Taha Yasseri taha.yas...@gmail.com wrote: Thank you Brian, Could you also plot the absolute number of edits, and editors, (instead of the ratio)? Though, since the data is ready I could do it on my own too! Surprisingly I see no IP contribution to the article (or may be only few), not in accord with my expectation for such a topic. cheers, .Taha On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 9:05 PM, Brian Keegan bkee...@northwestern.edu wrote: My preliminary analysis of (English) Wikipedia's response to the 2012 Aurora shootings. Data is available at the bottom: ** ** http://www.brianckeegan.com/2012/07/2012-aurora-shootings/ ** ** -- Brian C. Keegan Ph.D. Student - Media, Technology, Society School of Communication, Northwestern University Science of Networks in Communities, Laboratory for Collaborative Technology ** ** ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l -- Taha. -- Taha. ___ 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 ** ** ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l -- Taha. ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l -- Brian C. Keegan Ph.D. Student - Media, Technology, Society School of Communication, Northwestern University Science of Networks in Communities, Laboratory for Collaborative Technology ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
[Wiki-research-l] Wikipedia's response to 2012 Aurora shooting
My preliminary analysis of (English) Wikipedia's response to the 2012 Aurora shootings. Data is available at the bottom: http://www.brianckeegan.com/2012/07/2012-aurora-shootings/ -- Brian C. Keegan Ph.D. Student - Media, Technology, Society School of Communication, Northwestern University Science of Networks in Communities, Laboratory for Collaborative Technology ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
[Wiki-research-l] Call for Participation -- WikiSym 2012 in Linz, Austria -- August 27-29
*8th International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration (WikiSym) *August 27-29 -- Linz, Austria Call for Participation: *Early Registration Deadline is July 29* The International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration (WikiSym) is the premier conference on open collaboration and related technologies. In 2012, WikiSym celebrates its 8th year of scholarly, technical and community innovation in Linz, Austria. We are excited this year to be collocated with Ars Electronica http://www.aec.at/news/en/, the premier digital art and science meeting that attracts over 35,000 attendees per year. WikiSym will take place in Linz, Austria at the Ars Electronica Center. More details about attending can be found at: http://www.wikisym.org/ws2012/bin/view/Main/Attending or by following the @ WikiSym https://twitter.com/wikisym/ twitter account. Wikisym is a leading conference in understanding how individuals, groups, organizations and society can use information and communication technology to enable novel and meaningful collaboration and collective action. Researchers and practitioners from all over the world have gathered together in these meetings to discuss and display their insights into this important area of inquiry. The conference program will include a peer-reviewed research track, experience reports, workshops, posters, demos, a doctoral consortium, invited keynotes and panel speakers. As always, the participant-organized Open Space track will run throughout the conference. Evening social events will follow, because wiki folks know the value of a good party for sparking conversation and collaboration. Finally, WikiSym co-occurs with Ars Electronica http://www.aec.at/news/en/, and we are arranging experiences where conference attendees can enjoy this innovative and unusual event. Topics include all aspects of the people, tools, contexts, and content that comprise open collaboration systems. For example: - Collaboration tools and processes - Social and cultural aspects of collaboration - Collaboration beyond text: images, video, sound, etc. - Communities and workgroups - Knowledge and information production - New media literacies - Open source software development and use - Education and Open Educational Resources - E-government, open government, and public policy - Law/Intellectual Property (including Creative Commons) - Journalism (including participatory journalism) - Art and Entertainment (including collaborative and audience-involved art) - Science (including collaboratories) - Publishing (including open access and open review models) - Business (including open and collaborative management styles) (apologies for cross-postings!) -- Brian C. Keegan Ph.D. Student - Media, Technology, Society School of Communication, Northwestern University Science of Networks in Communities, Laboratory for Collaborative Technology ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] - solutions re academe Wiki
To be clear, my rhetorical flourish was not a hostile reaction to the academy itself (I am a dissertating PhD candidate after all) but to rather to its members' patronizing attitudes as embodied by Richard's mischaracterization of Piotr's point and institutional powers' model of profiting from others' freely-given labor while actively undermining competing approaches to knowledge production. While there is a long-standing tension on Wikipedia between openness and credential fetishism going back to Larry Sanger's (failed) editorial process for Nupedia, (failed) attempts to institute a defer to experts policy on Wikipedia (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deferring_to_the_experts), and (failing) attempts to have unpaid experts write and regulate Citizendium, expanding the academe's participation in Wikipedia is an entirely different matter from resisting an arrangement in which the actors which add the least value to scholarship have a tendency to profit the most. To be sure, open publication models (e.g., First Monday, PLoS ONE) introduce substantially more variability in the type and quality of scholarly contribution, but insofar as there are no marginal costs for digital distribution, why not let a thousand (peer-reviewed) flowers bloom and the community of scholars adjudicate their value should citation and replication? As for JSTOR being non-profit, that sobriquet hides any number of sins (see health insurance providers) -- you're welcome to extrapolate the difference between the revenue associated with ~3000 US institutions licensing some combination of JSTOR's 20 collections at an average annual price of ~$10k (http://about.jstor.org/fees/13008) and compare them with $17m in annual expenditures of the Wikimedia Foundation. While proprietary and open models for scientific knowledge publication each have their drawbacks, casting lots with the model having greater and more pernicious shortcomings through appeals to authority will not win many over. I don't understand how substantive peer review process will be substantially different under an open versus walled model. In the US, each still involves submissions funded by predominately by federal grant money or subsidized by (diminishing) state contributions, editorial control and review from hundreds of scholars freely giving their labor as a partial condition of employment by their home institutions, and distribution and archival in online databases supported and subsidized by institutional librarians. I don't believe anyone is arguing that knowledge production is free-as-in-beer: each academic domain will have different needs for scholarship (book reviews for history, rapid turnaround proceedings for computer scientists, etc.). Rather, these petitions reflect my belief that scholars should refocus their work towards outlets which limit the opportunity for Elsevier, et al. to enrich their shareholders to the considerable detriment of the austerity-wrecked citizens, scholars, and their academe who actually pay for and create this value. Finally, I believe we would be remiss as proponents of open publication if we did not also demand open publication of underlying data, programs, and algorithms and importance of replication as crucial components of scholarly work as we transition to new and more open models of science. On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 12:30 AM, Richard Jensen rjen...@uic.edu wrote: Sadly I think this discussion demonstrates some hostility toward academe. (here's a quote from yesterday addressed to me on this list: ...knowledge robberbarons standing athwart history imagining they and their institutions alone, had the requisite skills and expertise to engage in knowledge production. Until they didn't. Enjoy your new neighbors in trash heap of history. I would code his emotional tone as hostile) Well it's always nice to see people citing the lessons of history, especially since I'm a specialist in that sort of OR. But the underlying hostility is a problem that bothers me a lot and I have been trying to think of ways to bridge the gap. There is in operation a Wikimedia Foundation Education program that is small and will not, in my opinion, scale up easily to the size needed. In any case the Foundation plans to cut the US-Canada program loose in 12 months to go its own way. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Wikipedia:Education_Working_** Group/Wikimedia_Foundation_**Rolehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Education_Working_Group/Wikimedia_Foundation_Role My own thinking is currently along two lines: a) set up a highly visible Wiki prsence at scholarly conventions (in multiple disciplines) with 1) Wiki people at booths to explain the secrets of Wikipedia to interested academics and 2) hands-on workshops to show professors how to integrate student projects into their classes. (and yes, professors given paid time off to attend these conventions, often plus travel money.) b) run a training program for experienced
[Wiki-research-l] WikiSym 2012 Doctoral Symposium
Calling all PhD students who study Wikis and open collaboration! The deadline for the WikiSym 2012 doctoral symposium is Friday, April 27. As a prior participant, this is a great venue to get feedback on your research design, theories, and methods from some outstanding scholars while networking with other Wiki and open collaboration researchers. Bernie Hoganhttp://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/?id=140(Oxford Internet Institute) will be leading the doctoral symposium this year. Details on applying are below. === The WikiSym 2012 Doctoral Symposium is a forum in which Ph.D. students can meet and discuss their work with each other and a panel of experienced researchers and practitioners. The symposium will be held on August 26 in Linz, Austria to coincide with Ars Electronica. *Important dates:* Apr 23, 2012 Application materials dueMay 21, 2012Notification of acceptanceJuly 23, 2012Final versions of abstracts and research overviews dueAugust 23, 2012Doctoral Symposium We encourage participation from all doctoral students doing work related to open collaboration, regardless of their academic discipline. Relevant disciplines include (but are not limited to) computer science, sociology, psychology, anthropology, information science, cognitive science, rhetoric, communications, and economics. Applicants should be PhD students with a clear focus or programme of research. This workshop will help to strengthen and sharpen the research focus and implementation, rather than generate specific ideas for research. Preference will be given to students who already have begun their dissertations and are within two years of graduation. The Symposium committee will select 8-10 participants. Participants will present their work at the Symposium; each student presentation will be followed by feedback from a faculty mentor and extensive group discussion. *How to Apply:* Applicants should submit the following items through the (EasyChair Conference Systemhttps://www.easychair.org/account/signin.cgi?conf=wikisym12 ) A two-page overview of your doctoral research that describes your research question, any work in progress, and expected contributions of the dissertation as well as expectations for this doctoral symposium. This overview should begin with an abstract of no more than 100 words. Please submit in the CHI Extended Abstract Format (Word Templatehttp://www.sigchi.org/chi2010/authors/chi2010extendedabstracts.docfrom CHI 2010, please remove copyright notice) - A half page biographical sketch, and a short paragraph about your current supervisor including contact information. *An up-to-date curriculum vita. *Optionally, one publication as an indicator of your progress in your research. All submissions must be submitted by April 23, 2012. Use the same application system as the original submissions, which will be open after April 13th for Doctoral Symposium submissions, and include all relevant material in a single contiguous document. *Doctoral Symposium Chair*: Bernie Hogan, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford (bernie.ho...@oii.ox.ac.uk) *Additional Faculty Mentors will be announced within two months of the event, and students will be notified who is their Symposium mentor. * Feel free to email the Chair with any questions. -- Brian C. Keegan Ph.D. Student - Media, Technology, Society School of Communication, Northwestern University Science of Networks in Communities, Laboratory for Collaborative Technology ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
