[Wiki-research-l] Re: updating the wikipedia page: "Wikipedia:List of academic studies about Wikipedia"

[Finn Årup Nielsen]

Hello,


Scholia can display country-topic information.

Switzerland - Wikipedia:
https://scholia.toolforge.org/country/Q39/topic/Q52
(author and organization currently times out for me, - we will change 
the SPARQL query to


In the meantime Synia has a simpler and faster country-topic query that 
completes:

https://synia.toolforge.org/#country/Q39/topic/Q52

Poland - Wikipedia:
https://scholia.toolforge.org/country/Q36/topic/Q52
https://synia.toolforge.org/#country/Q36/topic/Q52

Hungary - Wikipedia
https://scholia.toolforge.org/country/Q28/topic/Q52
https://synia.toolforge.org/#country/Q28/topic/Q52


Best regards
Finn Årup Nielsen

On 22/03/2024 15.47, Brett Buttliere wrote:

Hello,

We are searching for a list of researchers by country, with research
interests and affiliation (e.g., uni nonprofit) - to facilitate
collaboration and consortium building for e.g., european projects that
require people from specific nations and research entities to be on the
grant (e.g., someone from Switzerland, Poland, and Hungary, or Italy,
Netherlands, and Cyprus). Also for instance to increase cooperation between
universities and non-profits.

Does anyone know of anything like this? I believe that Wiki research is in
a particularly good position to apply for such grants and perhaps this the
group to do it with.

Also I am in discussion to host a sort of Wikimedia Colloquium at the
University of Warsaw just after WikiMania if anyone would have interest in
this. We are working on metrics of impact for wikimedia and encouraging
scientists to contribute, but will also be interested in all things
bibliometric and wikimedia.

Best,
Brett

On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 8:12 PM Finn Årup Nielsen  wrote:


Dear Kavein,


I now see that the list on

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_academic_studies_about_Wikipedia
is a Listeria list that means the the table content comes from Wikidata
(like Scholia).

In Scholia, we currently limit the number of publications listed for a
topic to 500. You can go to the SPARQL and change "LIMIT 500" to "LIMIT
5000" and you will get 3047 results. This is somewhat more than what is
displayed on the Wikipedia page with Listeria: The query in Scholia is
more general.

A short link to the query with LIMIT on 5000 is here: https://w.wiki/9WVa

best regards
Finn Årup Nielsen

On 13/03/2024 06.06, Kavein Thran wrote:

Hi,

turns out that I have only operated the recently published data which
have up to 500 entries,

the oldest published data also have 500 entries.

perhaps, another heading can be added to reflect chronological
publication, that would allow loading the entire 1200 + papers.

and, as there are many charts and the page is quite busy with plots
and data, it may not be friendly to assistive tools/screen reader. by
porting it to wikipedia through the list of academic papers, it can be
taken care in that way.

thanks

On 3/13/24, Kavein Thran  wrote:

hi Finn,

This is a great resource, but, as the data is so large, I can only
load 500 at a time, I guess it would have more flexibility if this can
be ported in some way to wikipedia pages.
i am not sure if the Wikidata can be filtered to only shows
thesis/dissertations.
The thesis page at now defunct wiki papers page is out-dated as it
only shows thesis up to 2012

thanks

On 3/12/24, Finn Årup Nielsen  wrote:

Dear Kavein and others,


I tend to update research on Wikidata instead on Wikipedia.

The Scholia page that shows Wikipedia research papers as listed in
Wikidata is here: https://scholia.toolforge.org/topic/Q52

I wonder how much curation is missing for Wikidata compared to the page
on the English Wikipedia and Wikipapers?


best regards
Finn Årup Nielsen

On 12/03/2024 04.47, Kavein Thran wrote:

Hi, I am not particularly good at this, and I am not sure if the talk
page for


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_academic_studies_about_Wikipedia

is still active and up for it so I am putting it here.

I guess the research
on wikipedias and wiki sisters project need more curation. Perhaps it
can be sourced from
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter

Particularly, the thesis section on the wikipedia page directs to a
"not found" page
http://wikipapers.referata.com/wiki/List_of_doctoral_theses

___
Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to

wiki-research-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org





--
Regards,
Kavein
Kaveinthran (He/Him)
Curious, Native Blind

Disabled independent Human Rights Advocate
email: kaveinth...@gmail.com 
twitter <https://twitter.com/kaveinthran>
My LinkedIn <https://my.linkedin.com/in/kaveinthran>





___
Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to wiki-research-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org


___
Wiki-

[Wiki-research-l] Re: updating the wikipedia page: "Wikipedia:List of academic studies about Wikipedia"

[Finn Årup Nielsen]

Dear Kavein,


I now see that the list on 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_academic_studies_about_Wikipedia 
is a Listeria list that means the the table content comes from Wikidata 
(like Scholia).


In Scholia, we currently limit the number of publications listed for a 
topic to 500. You can go to the SPARQL and change "LIMIT 500" to "LIMIT 
5000" and you will get 3047 results. This is somewhat more than what is 
displayed on the Wikipedia page with Listeria: The query in Scholia is 
more general.


A short link to the query with LIMIT on 5000 is here: https://w.wiki/9WVa

best regards
Finn Årup Nielsen

On 13/03/2024 06.06, Kavein Thran wrote:

Hi,

turns out that I have only operated the recently published data which
have up to 500 entries,

the oldest published data also have 500 entries.

perhaps, another heading can be added to reflect chronological
publication, that would allow loading the entire 1200 + papers.

and, as there are many charts and the page is quite busy with plots
and data, it may not be friendly to assistive tools/screen reader. by
porting it to wikipedia through the list of academic papers, it can be
taken care in that way.

thanks

On 3/13/24, Kavein Thran  wrote:

hi Finn,

This is a great resource, but, as the data is so large, I can only
load 500 at a time, I guess it would have more flexibility if this can
be ported in some way to wikipedia pages.
i am not sure if the Wikidata can be filtered to only shows
thesis/dissertations.
The thesis page at now defunct wiki papers page is out-dated as it
only shows thesis up to 2012

thanks

On 3/12/24, Finn Årup Nielsen  wrote:

Dear Kavein and others,


I tend to update research on Wikidata instead on Wikipedia.

The Scholia page that shows Wikipedia research papers as listed in
Wikidata is here: https://scholia.toolforge.org/topic/Q52

I wonder how much curation is missing for Wikidata compared to the page
on the English Wikipedia and Wikipapers?


best regards
Finn Årup Nielsen

On 12/03/2024 04.47, Kavein Thran wrote:

Hi, I am not particularly good at this, and I am not sure if the talk
page for
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_academic_studies_about_Wikipedia
is still active and up for it so I am putting it here.

I guess the research
on wikipedias and wiki sisters project need more curation. Perhaps it
can be sourced from
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter

Particularly, the thesis section on the wikipedia page directs to a
"not found" page
http://wikipapers.referata.com/wiki/List_of_doctoral_theses

___
Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to wiki-research-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org




--
Regards,
Kavein
Kaveinthran (He/Him)
Curious, Native Blind

Disabled independent Human Rights Advocate
email: kaveinth...@gmail.com 
twitter <https://twitter.com/kaveinthran>
My LinkedIn <https://my.linkedin.com/in/kaveinthran>





___
Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to wiki-research-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wiki-research-l] Re: updating the wikipedia page: "Wikipedia:List of academic studies about Wikipedia"

[Finn Årup Nielsen]

Dear Kavein,


I have created a page on Synia to show theses for a topic.

Here with Wikipedia (Q52) as the topic:

https://synia.toolforge.org/#topic/Q52/thesis

Currently, there are only 32 Wikipedia theses listed. I guess there are 
more than that number.



best regards
Finn Årup Nielsen




On 13/03/2024 05.58, Kavein Thran wrote:

hi Finn,

This is a great resource, but, as the data is so large, I can only
load 500 at a time, I guess it would have more flexibility if this can
be ported in some way to wikipedia pages.
i am not sure if the Wikidata can be filtered to only shows
thesis/dissertations.
The thesis page at now defunct wiki papers page is out-dated as it
only shows thesis up to 2012

thanks

On 3/12/24, Finn Årup Nielsen  wrote:

Dear Kavein and others,


I tend to update research on Wikidata instead on Wikipedia.

The Scholia page that shows Wikipedia research papers as listed in
Wikidata is here: https://scholia.toolforge.org/topic/Q52

I wonder how much curation is missing for Wikidata compared to the page
on the English Wikipedia and Wikipapers?


best regards
Finn Årup Nielsen

On 12/03/2024 04.47, Kavein Thran wrote:

Hi, I am not particularly good at this, and I am not sure if the talk
page for
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_academic_studies_about_Wikipedia
is still active and up for it so I am putting it here.

I guess the research
on wikipedias and wiki sisters project need more curation. Perhaps it
can be sourced from
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter

Particularly, the thesis section on the wikipedia page directs to a
"not found" page
http://wikipapers.referata.com/wiki/List_of_doctoral_theses

___
Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to wiki-research-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org





___
Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to wiki-research-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wiki-research-l] Re: updating the wikipedia page: "Wikipedia:List of academic studies about Wikipedia"

[Finn Årup Nielsen]

Dear Kavein and others,


I tend to update research on Wikidata instead on Wikipedia.

The Scholia page that shows Wikipedia research papers as listed in 
Wikidata is here: https://scholia.toolforge.org/topic/Q52


I wonder how much curation is missing for Wikidata compared to the page 
on the English Wikipedia and Wikipapers?



best regards
Finn Årup Nielsen

On 12/03/2024 04.47, Kavein Thran wrote:

Hi, I am not particularly good at this, and I am not sure if the talk
page for 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_academic_studies_about_Wikipedia
is still active and up for it so I am putting it here.

I guess the research
on wikipedias and wiki sisters project need more curation. Perhaps it
can be sourced from
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter

Particularly, the thesis section on the wikipedia page directs to a
"not found" page
http://wikipapers.referata.com/wiki/List_of_doctoral_theses

___
Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to wiki-research-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Analytics] Python client for the new pageview API

[Finn Årup Nielsen]

Just to confuse the issue further:

You can already get views statistics from the ordinary API of an 
ordinary MediaWiki instance (where the $wgDisableCounters is set to false).


For instance, an API call on my wiki could be: 
http://neuro.compute.dtu.dk/w/api.php?action=query&prop=info&titles=Amygdala&format=jsonfm 
where the 'counter' field displays the statistics.


On Wikimedia Foundation's MediaWiki instances such as the Wikipedia you 
won't get the counter, see 
https://da.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&prop=info&titles=Amygdala&format=jsonfm


/Finn


On 12/15/2015 04:55 PM, Finn Årup Nielsen wrote:

Is this tool really a MediaWiki utility? As far as I understand the
webservice running from http://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/metrics/ is
independent of the MediaWiki software. Or am I misunderstanding
something? The API and the tool are a Wikimedia Foundation project
outside the main MediaWiki development (Github mirror:
https://github.com/wikimedia/analytics-pageview-api), so the previous
name (wmf) was actually better IMHO?

'mwviews' could mislead people to think that it could access view
statistics from any MediaWiki instance. This is not that case if I
understand correctly. "wmviews" would be a better name. :-)

/Finn


On 12/14/2015 03:32 PM, Dan Andreescu wrote:

I wasn't aware of some conventions that came before me, so I moved the
project from milimetric/wmf to mediawiki-utilities/python-mwviews.  I
promise it'll stay there, sorry for the inconvenience.  Updated links:

PyPI: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/mwviews/0.0.2
code: https://github.com/mediawiki-utilities/python-mwviews (PRs still
welcome, thanks for the 2 you already helped with!)

On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 10:36 PM, Dan Andreescu
mailto:dandree...@wikimedia.org>> wrote:

Along the same lines as Oliver's great R client [1], I just started
work on a python version:

PyPI: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/wmf/0.1
code: https://github.com/milimetric/wmf (PRs welcome)

And if you're trying to skip past all the setup repository cruft,
the meat:

https://github.com/milimetric/wmf/blob/master/wmf/analytics/api/pageviews.py



[1] https://github.com/Ironholds/pageviews




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







--
Finn Årup Nielsen
http://people.compute.dtu.dk/faan/

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Analytics] Python client for the new pageview API

[Finn Årup Nielsen]

Is this tool really a MediaWiki utility? As far as I understand the 
webservice running from http://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/metrics/ is 
independent of the MediaWiki software. Or am I misunderstanding 
something? The API and the tool are a Wikimedia Foundation project 
outside the main MediaWiki development (Github mirror: 
https://github.com/wikimedia/analytics-pageview-api), so the previous 
name (wmf) was actually better IMHO?


'mwviews' could mislead people to think that it could access view 
statistics from any MediaWiki instance. This is not that case if I 
understand correctly. "wmviews" would be a better name. :-)


/Finn


On 12/14/2015 03:32 PM, Dan Andreescu wrote:

I wasn't aware of some conventions that came before me, so I moved the
project from milimetric/wmf to mediawiki-utilities/python-mwviews.  I
promise it'll stay there, sorry for the inconvenience.  Updated links:

PyPI: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/mwviews/0.0.2
code: https://github.com/mediawiki-utilities/python-mwviews (PRs still
welcome, thanks for the 2 you already helped with!)

On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 10:36 PM, Dan Andreescu
mailto:dandree...@wikimedia.org>> wrote:

Along the same lines as Oliver's great R client [1], I just started
work on a python version:

PyPI: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/wmf/0.1
code: https://github.com/milimetric/wmf (PRs welcome)

And if you're trying to skip past all the setup repository cruft,
the meat:
https://github.com/milimetric/wmf/blob/master/wmf/analytics/api/pageviews.py


[1] https://github.com/Ironholds/pageviews




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




--
Finn Årup Nielsen
http://people.compute.dtu.dk/faan/

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Aaron Swartz Hypothesis on Wikipedia Authorship

[Finn Årup Nielsen]

The issue was discussed a bit in 2008 under the title "Regular 
contributor", see the thread here:


https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/2008-November/000672.html


I have attempted to summarize the issue in the section "User 
contribution" here:

"Wikipedia research and tools: Review and comments."
http://www2.compute.dtu.dk/pubdb/views/edoc_download.php/6012/pdf/imm6012.pdf

There is also a few pointers in the "Participation Trends" section in 
our "The people's encyclopedia under the gaze of the sages: A systematic 
review of scholarly research on Wikipedia"

http://orbit.dtu.dk/fedora/objects/orbit:119482/datastreams/file_73b48cd3-a711-4a7b-99ce-0dda59bc6bd0/content


One interesting original study is this one: "Creating, Destroying, and 
Restoring Value in Wikipedia" from 2007 by

Reid Priedhorsky and others.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1316624.1316663

They conclude:

"We show that 1/10th of 1% of editors contributed nearly half
of the value, measured by words read."



best regards
Finn Årup Nielsen



On 06/23/2015 04:46 PM, Krzysztof Gajewski wrote:

Hi all,

I wonder if you know if somebody verified and / or further researched
Aaron Swartz's thesis on structure of Wikipedia participation. You can
find it here: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia

Best,
Krzysztof Gajewski

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




--
Finn Årup Nielsen
http://people.compute.dtu.dk/faan/

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Waray-Waray language Wikipedia

[Finn Årup Nielsen]

There is a range of articles about Sverker Johansson's work:


https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/06/17/swedish-wikipedia-1-million-articles/

http://www.nordiclabourjournal.org/i-fokus/robotics-in-working-life/article.2014-04-10.5668747769

http://www.norwegian.com/magazine/features/2014/09/the-worlds-most-prolific-writer


best regards
Finn


On 05/01/2015 10:44 AM, Pine W wrote:

Hi researchers,

I was surprised to learn that the Waray-Waray language, which has about
2.6 million native speakers and is a regional language in the
Philippines, has about 1.3 million articles in its Wikipedia. Is this
the result of bot translations, or is this a small language community
with a very high level of Wikipedia human activity?

Thanks,
Pine



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




--
Finn Årup Nielsen
http://people.compute.dtu.dk/faan/

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Research on Wikidata's content coverage

[Finn Årup Nielsen]

Dear Oliver,

On 04/08/2015 03:38 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote:

Thanks both!

I'm specifically looking at Wikidata's coverage, rather than
Wikipedia's - in other words, work done on deficiencies in the mapping
of wikimedia content onto wikidata content.


Oh, I didn't see it was Wikidata instead of Wikpedia.

Wikipedia research and tools: Review and comments.
http://www2.compute.dtu.dk/pubdb/views/edoc_download.php/6012/pdf/imm6012.pdf

contains pointers to the Max Klein/Piotr Konieczny studies and Magnus 
Manske's

Mix’n’match (presently page 11). Magnus Manske has a blog post recently:

http://magnusmanske.de/wordpress/?p=278
"Sex and artists"

If I remember correctly wikidata-l had some discussion about that. 
Probably you know that already.



best
Finn Årup Nielsen




On 8 April 2015 at 07:19, Flöck, Fabian  wrote:

Hi Oliver,

from the top of my head, two on gender coverage:
the one Max just sent around:
http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/777/631
and another one, with a different approach, but a similar goal:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.06307

We had one on diversity that also has a small section about
representativeness of the editor base, although it might not be exactly what
you are looking for: http://journal.webscience.org/432/1/112_paper.pdf

Gruß,
Fabian


On 07.04.2015, at 21:50, Oliver Keyes  wrote:

Hey all,

Is anyone aware of research on the completeness of Wikidata, in terms
of coverage and systemic bias? This seems like the sort of thing Max
Klein might know ;). Papers, blog posts, anything.

--
Oliver Keyes
Research Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation

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





Cheers,
Fabian

--
Fabian Flöck
Research Associate
Computational Social Science department @GESIS
Unter Sachsenhausen 6-8, 50667 Cologne, Germany
Tel: + 49 (0) 221-47694-208
fabian.flo...@gesis.org

www.gesis.org
www.facebook.com/gesis.org






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








--
Finn Årup Nielsen
http://people.compute.dtu.dk/faan/

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Release]

[Finn Årup Nielsen]

Hi Oliver,


Interesting dataset! I am curious about why the Danish Wikipedia is so 
highly acccessed from Sweden. Could it be an error, e.g., with Telia 
IP-numbers?


In Python:

>>> import pandas as pd
>>> df = 
pd.read_csv('http://files.figshare.com/1923822/language_pageviews_per_country.tsv', 
sep='\t')
>>> df.ix[df.project == 'da.wikipedia.org', ['country', 
'pageviews_percentage']].set_index('country') 
pageviews_percentage

country
Austria1
China  1
Denmark   61
Estonia1
France 1
Germany2
Netherlands2
Norway 1
Sweden18
United Kingdom 3
United States  3
Other  5


MaxMind has some numbers on their own accuracy:

https://www.maxmind.com/en/geoip2-city-database-accuracy

For Denmark 85% is "Correctly Resolved", for Sweden only 68%. I wonder 
if this really could bias the result so much.


If the numbers are correct why would the Swedish read the Danish 
Wikipedia so much? Bots? It does not apply the other way around: Only 2% 
of the traffic to Swedish Wikipedia comes from Denmark.




best regards
Finn



On 02/25/2015 10:06 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote:

Hey all!

We've released a highly-aggregated dataset of readership data -
specifically, data about where, geographically, traffic to each of our
projects (and all of our projects) comes from. The data can be found
at http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1317408 - additionally, I've
put together an exploration tool for it at
https://ironholds.shinyapps.io/WhereInTheWorldIsWikipedia/

Hope it's useful to people!




--
Finn Årup Nielsen
http://people.compute.dtu.dk/faan/

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Tool to find poorly written articles

[Finn Årup Nielsen]

My "Wikipedia research and tools: Review and comments." has a section on 
"Automated quality tools" starting on page 35 in

http://www2.compute.dtu.dk/pubdb/views/edoc_download.php/6012/pdf/imm6012.pdf

It has far from all papers on the issue, but might help a bit.

For vandalism detection there are quite a few suggestions for 
quality/vandalism features. There is a good overview of some of the 
systems here:


Martin Potthast, Benno Stein, and Teresa Holfeld. Overview of the 1st 
international competition on Wikipedia vandalism detection. In PAN

2010, 2010.
http://www.inf.u-szeged.hu/~ihegedus/publ/clef2010labs_submission_126.pdf

I suppose some of the features might work for more general quality 
assessment.



best regards
Finn Årup Nielsen
http://people.compute.dtu.dk/faan/

On 10/25/2014 10:41 PM, Kerry Raymond wrote:

I think it's pointless to argue over what we mean by "quality" or "well
written" in general. It is fair to say that there are a lot of mechanically
derivable metrics for articles including:

* number of citations
* number of unique citations
* article length
* density of citations, unique citations relative to article length
* ditto for photos, infoboxes, navbox, categories etc
* linguistic analysis like sentence length, Flesch-Kincaid readability
scores
* Age of article
* Number of editors
* Number of page views
* Density of ...
* number of reverts
* reverts per editor/year/etc ..
* number of inbound links, number of outbound links, number of redlinks
* manual quality assessments (usually in project tags)
* presence of "issue" tags, e.g. refimprove, citation needed, etc

It seem to be that if we had a tool that could generate a wide range of
these sort of metrics, folks could then put their own algorithm over the top
to compute and weight whatever combination of them makes sense for their
particular purpose.

Kerry

-Original Message-
From: wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Ziko van
Dijk
Sent: Saturday, 25 October 2014 11:28 PM
To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Tool to find poorly written articles

Okay. What do you think of the wikibu tool from Switzerland? It
believes that the number of editors and readers etc are indicators for
the quality, or at least a basis to discuss.
Kind regards
Ziko

http://www.wikibu.ch/search.php?search=Frankfurter+Nationalversammlung

2014-10-25 14:44 GMT+02:00 Ditty Mathew :

Hi Ziko,

You are right. But if the content of the article is very less or having

less

references, less edits, less no of images, less no of links etc, articles
are of poor quality. Based on these factors, to some extent we can find

the

quality of article.

with regards

Ditty

On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:


Hello Ditty,

It is difficult for me to understand your question if you are not more
specific of what you consider a "poorly written article". "Poorly" can
refer her to many different things, like readability, grammar,
balance, statements supported by 'sources', good division of knowledge
over several articles etc.

I think that software tools can only give a hint, but the judgement
(how "good" is an article) can be done only by a human, on the basis
of concrete criteria what is meant to be "good", and for what target
group. I tend to say that some Wikipedia articles are "good" for
experts but at the same time unsuitable for the general public.

E.g., a software tool can count the words per sentence, but long
sentences are not necessarily good or bad by themselves.

Etc. :-)

Kind regards
Ziko







2014-10-25 1:47 GMT+02:00 Joe Corneli :


On Sat, Oct 25 2014, WereSpielChequers wrote:


And just to add to the complexity of James' comments; there are some
people
who think that a general interest encyclopaedia should be written for

a

general audience. So articles with long sentences should be improved

by

rewriting into more but shorter sentences,


How about an even simpler version of the problem: an encyclopedia
written by robots for robots.  I speak, of course, of DBPedia.  We

could

equally ask, what makes for quality entries there?

___
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



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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Quality on different language version

[Finn Årup Nielsen]

Dear Kerry,


Concerning: "I think we need to have some common understanding of what 
we mean by quality, before we try to compare it across languages."


When reviewing Wikipedia research we already did that. Our categories 
were very much like those you suggested. Under quality 
http://wikilit.referata.com/wiki/Category:Quality we have:


1) Comprehensiveness‎ (i.e., completeness or coverage)

2) Currency‎ (i.e., up-to-dateness)

3) Readability and style‎ (spelling and grammar could go here)

4) Reliability‎ (accuracy, e.g., factual errors)


And not really quality per se:

a) Antecedents of quality‎

b) Featured articles‎

In our JASIST paper in print '"The sum of all human knowledge": a 
systematic review of scholarly research on the content of Wikipedia' we 
furthermore has a section called 'verifiability' (i.e., 'use of sources')


In my review ("Wikipedia research and tools: Review and comments") I 
have this list: accuracy (no factual errors), coverage, bias, 
conciseness, readability, up-to-dateness, usable/suitable

and whether the articles are well-illustrated and
well-sourced.


Note that in our review we distinguish between "real" quality and user 
perception of quality. You will see our list of studies on perception of 
quality here:


http://wikilit.referata.com/wiki/Category:Reader_perceptions_of_credibility

These studies are discussed in "Wikipedia in the eyes of its beholders: 
a systematic review of scholarly research on Wikipedia readers and 
readership" (page 14+)



The reviews are (perhaps!?) available from (The webservers have had 
problems. If a link does not work try the other one or contact us):


'"The sum of all human knowledge": a systematic review of scholarly 
research on the content of Wikipedia'

http://www2.compute.dtu.dk/pubdb/views/edoc_download.php/6784/pdf/imm6784.pdf

http://spectrum.library.concordia.ca/978618/1/WikiLit_Content_%2D_open_access_version.pdf

http://neuro.compute.dtu.dk/wiki/%22The_sum_of_all_human_knowledge%22:_a_systematic_review_of_scholarly_research_on_the_content_of_Wikipedia


"Wikipedia research and tools: Review and comments"
http://www2.imm.dtu.dk/pubdb/views/edoc_download.php/6012/pdf/imm6012.pdf


"Wikipedia in the eyes of its beholders: a systematic review of 
scholarly research on Wikipedia readers and readership"


http://www2.compute.dtu.dk/pubdb/views/edoc_download.php/6785/pdf/imm6785.pdf

http://spectrum.library.concordia.ca/978617/1/Wikipedia_Readership_-_JASIST_-_open_access_version.pdf

http://neuro.compute.dtu.dk/wiki/Wikipedia_in_the_eyes_of_its_beholders:_a_systematic_review_of_scholarly_research_on_Wikipedia_readers_and_readership


best
Finn Årup Nielsen



On 06/11/2014 02:19 AM, Kerry Raymond wrote:

Having followed this thread, I am somewhat confused about what is meant by
the term "article quality", even in a single language, yet alone multiple
languages.

Sticking just to a single language for the moment ...

Do we mean that the facts presented are correct? That the kings and queens
were born and died on the dates stated?

Do we mean spelling and grammar is correct? Do we mean some kind of logical
structure? Do we mean some kind of narrative flow that "tells the story" of
the topic in a natural and engaging way?

Do we mean the use of citations? Do we mean whether the citation used
actually contains information that supports what is said by the text in the
article with which it is associated?

Do we mean some kind of "completeness" of an article? That is, it has "all"
the information. If so, what do we do if the topic is split across a number
of articles {{main|...}}}? Do we assess the group of articles? And what do
we mean by "all" anyway?

Do we mean it meets all the WP policies? Notability? Appropriate use of
external links? That the Manual of Style has been carefully followed?

Or do we mean whether it has been assessed as a stub/start/.../good article
by some review process?

Whenever I find myself in a discussion about "quality" (on any subject, not
just Wikipedia), it pretty much always boils down to "fitness for purpose as
perceived by the user". This is why surveying of users is often used to
measure quality. "How well did we serve you today?" If anyone has been
through Singapore Airport recently, you will have encountered the touch
screens asking to rate on a 1-5 scale just about everything you could
imagine, every toilet block, every immigration queue, etc. And it does have
the cleanest toilets and the fastest immigration queues, so maybe there's
something to be said for the approach.

I think we need to have some common understanding of what we mean by
quality, before we try to compare it across languages. And when we do
compare across languages, then we have to observe that the set of users
changes 

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Quality on different language version

[Finn Årup Nielsen]

Dear Heather,


In our WikiLit systematic reviews we found a few publications. I have 
just made a semantic query on the WikiLit site to give you an overview:


http://wikilit.referata.com/wiki/WikiLit:Quality

There are not that many. You should find them described in our review on 
research on Wikipedia content: "The sum of all human knowledge": a 
systematic review of scholarly research on the content of Wikipedia


http://spectrum.library.concordia.ca/978618/1/WikiLit_Content_%2D_open_access_version.pdf

http://neuro.compute.dtu.dk/wiki/%22The_sum_of_all_human_knowledge%22:_a_systematic_review_of_scholarly_research_on_the_content_of_Wikipedia

best
Finn Årup Nielsen


On 06/10/2014 01:09 PM, Heather Ford wrote:

Hi Anders,

Yes, it's a great question! Mark Graham and I are currently working on a
project around how to determine quality within and between Wikipedias
and I've been looking around for literature. I'm only just starting the
literature review but I've found some interesting studies by Callahan &
Herring (2011) [1] and Stvilia, Al-Faraj, and Yi (2009) [2]. The
majority of quality studies, we find, have been done on English
Wikipedia (starting with the famous 2005 Nature study) but there have
been few studies that assess of quality between languages. If you find
anything else, let us know!

Thanks!

Best,
heather.

[1] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.21577/abstract

[2]
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/200773220_Issues_of_cross-contextual_information_quality_evaluation_-_The_case_of_Arabic_English_and_Korean_Wikipedia/file/60b7d51ae682e9912a.pdf




Heather Ford
Oxford Internet Institute <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk> Doctoral Programme
EthnographyMatters <http://ethnographymatters.net> | Oxford Digital
Ethnography Group <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=115>
http://hblog.org <http://hblog.org/> | @hfordsa
<http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa>




On 10 June 2014 07:58, Anders Wennersten mailto:m...@anderswennersten.se>> wrote:

(reposted from Wikimedia-i)

I have several times asked for a professional quality study of our
different language versions, but not seen it exist or being done,
perhaps you know more on this list?. before we start the strategy
work I  believe we should have basic facts on the table like this one

I therefor list here my subjective impression after daily looking
into the different version for 5-15 articles (new ones being created
on sv.wp) (I list them in order how often I use them to calibrate
the svwp articles).

enwp- a magnitude better then any other. main weakeness are articles
on marginal subjects that seems to be allowed to exist there, even
if rather bad, and without templates (noone cares to patrol these?)

eswp - a very  good version, which in the general discussion are not
getting appropriate credit

dewp - good when the articles exist, but many serious holes. Is the
elitist way of running it, discouraging new editors in non obvious
subjects (that after time passes gets very relevant)?
frwp - also good, but somewhat scattered quality both in coverage
and the different articles (even in same subject area)
nlwp - very good coverage in the geographic subjects, decent quality
on articles but limited "world" coverage in areas like biographies
itwp - good articles but a bit italiancentered,

nowp - small but decent articles. Their short focused articletext
sometimes give more easyaccessed knowledge then an overly long one
in other languages

ptwp - the real disappointment. it is among the top ten in volume
and accesses but clearly missing a lot, and even existing articles
are uneven. I now use it even less then Ukrainian and Russian which
I use very seldom as the different alphabet makes it hard to
understand the article content

dawp,fiwp and plwp -Ok but only used by me for articles related to
the country

(arabic, chinese and japanese I almost never use, too complicated)

(I also use some smaller ones like sqwp , in these versions I have
seen serious quality problems not to be found in any of the above
ones, I am not sure they even have basic patrolling in place)

Anders

_
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.__wikimedia.org
<mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/__mailman/listinfo/wiki-__research-l
<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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wikipedia reviews published on content and on readership

[Finn Årup Nielsen]

Dear Heather,


Yes, the entire spectrum.library.concordia.ca seems to be down. This is 
probably just temporarily. Until it gets up again you may try these links:


Wikipedia in the eyes of its beholders: a systematic review of scholarly 
research on Wikipedia readers and readership

http://www2.compute.dtu.dk/pubdb/views/edoc_download.php/6785/pdf/imm6785.pdf

"The sum of all human knowledge": a systematic review of scholarly 
research on the content of Wikipedia

http://www2.compute.dtu.dk/pubdb/views/edoc_download.php/6784/pdf/imm6784.pdf


Finn Årup Nielsen
http://www.compute.dtu.dk/~faan/


On 05/13/2014 09:43 AM, Heather Ford wrote:

Thanks for sending, Chitu. The concordia links don't seem to be working...

Heather Ford
Oxford Internet Institute <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk> Doctoral Programme
EthnographyMatters <http://ethnographymatters.net> | Oxford Digital
Ethnography Group <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=115>
http://hblog.org <http://hblog.org/> | @hfordsa
<http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa>




On 12 May 2014 20:03, Chitu Okoli mailto:chitu.ok...@concordia.ca>> wrote:

Hi everyone,

We have two Wikipedia literature reviews recently accepted for
publication, both at the Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology. Open access versions are
available on the Concordia University institutional repository:

* Wikipedia in the eyes of its beholders: A systematic review of
scholarly research on Wikipedia readers and readership
(https://spectrum.library.__concordia.ca/978617/
<https://spectrum.library.concordia.ca/978617/>). This article
reviews studies on ranking and popularity; Wikipedia as a knowledge
source; student readership; and commercial aspects of Wikipedia,
among other topics.

* “The sum of all human knowledge”: A systematic review of scholarly
research on the content of Wikipedia
(https://spectrum.library.__concordia.ca/978618/
<https://spectrum.library.concordia.ca/978618/>). This article
reviews studies on the quality of Wikipedia (including reliability,
comprehensive, and antecedents to quality) and the size of Wikipedia.

These are part of our larger literature review on Wikipedia (working
paper at http://ssrn.com/abstract=__2021326
<http://ssrn.com/abstract=2021326>; online database of studies at
http://wikilit.referata.com). We are currently working on detailed,
focused review papers on other important Wikipedia research topics
like motivations to participation, collaborative culture, Wikipedia
as a textual corpus, and other topics.

Unfortunately, because of the tremendous breadth of the topic, the
reviews mainly cover journal articles and doctoral theses (with
several important conference papers) up to 2011-2012.

We would very much appreciate your comments and feedback on the two
accepted papers, and on the working paper with the other topics.

    Regards,
Chitu Okoli
Mohamad Mehdi
Mostafa Mesgari
Finn Årup Nielsen
Arto Lanamäki

_
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.__wikimedia.org
<mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/__mailman/listinfo/wiki-__research-l
<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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Studies in Featured Articles.

[Finn Årup Nielsen]

Dear Julinana,

On 04/28/2014 03:59 AM, Juliana Bastos Marques wrote:


Hi all! I've been looking for studies about editing dynamics of Featured
Articles. Would anyone know about papers *in languages other than
English* with this theme?


I have made an example query on Non-English Featured articles on Wikilit:

http://wikilit.referata.com/wiki/Help:Example_queries#Non-English_Featured_articles

It lists the following:

"Issues of cross-contextual information quality evaluation-the case of 
Arabic, English, and Korean Wikipedias"


"Quality assessment process in Wikipedia's Vetrina: the role of the 
community's policies and rules"


"Wikipedia - a quantitative analysis"


best
Finn Årup Nielsen
http://www.compute.dtu.dk/~faan/

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] published articles about Wikipedia translation

[Finn Årup Nielsen]

We have Emilio's Wikipapers and our WikiLit.

Searching:

http://wikipapers.referata.com/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=translation

http://wikilit.referata.com/w/index.php?search=translation&title=Special%3ASearch

Or see our 'Translation' category in WikiLit:

http://wikilit.referata.com/wiki/Category:Translation


Finn Årup Nielsen
http://www.compute.dtu.dk/~faan/


On 03/19/2014 02:16 PM, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:

Hi,

Is there any list of academic studies of Wikimedia projects sorted or
tagged by topic? In particular I'm interested in anything to do with
translation, but it is useful for other topics as well.

The best thing that I could think of now is going to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_studies_of_Wikipedia
and searching the page for "translation".

Is there a more structured way?

Thanks!

--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬


___
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] gastroenterology and hepatology articles (was Re: Fwd: the Helsinki Times evaluates...)

[Finn Årup Nielsen]

The Kim paper is generally positive (though targeting not medical 
students, but pathology residents):


"These results are compelling and support the thesis that Wikipedia 
articles can be used as the foundation for a basic curriculum in 
pathology informatics."


http://wikilit.referata.com/wiki/The_pathology_informatics_curriculum_wiki:_harnessing_the_power_of_user-generated_content


best regards
Finn Årup Nielsen
DTU Compute. http://www.compute.dtu.dk/~faan/



On 12/08/2013 05:20 AM, James Salsman wrote:

Has there ever been a general purpose encyclopedia which was found
suitable for medical student instruction?

What are our median level readers going to do if we suddenly start
including enough pathophysiology images to please the med school
instructors? I'm not entirely sure it will help them, although on the
other hand it might encourage them to see a professional which is what
they often should be doing instead of reading Wikipedia. (But if
wishes were horses, beggars would ride)


... Daniel Mietchen wrote:


A similar paper on 39 gastroenterology/ hepatology articles on the
English Wikipedia came to different conclusions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Paper:_.22Evaluation_of_gastroenterology_and_hepatology_articles_on_Wikipedia:_Are_they_suitable_as_learning_resources_for_medical_students.3F.22


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




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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Fwd: the Helsinki Times evaluates the Finnish Wikipedia

[Finn Årup Nielsen]

Hi,


We are preparing a preprint and I believe we will post it here when we 
have it ready.


Until then you might look into our working paper, which should contain 
much on the content of the forthcoming JASIST paper:


"The People's Encyclopedia Under the Gaze of the Sages: A Systematic 
Review of Scholarly Research on Wikipedia"

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2021326

The relevant part begins around page 28.


Apart from that there has been a recent review by Archambault. The 
supplementary material gives a nice overview:


http://www.jmir.org/article/downloadSuppFile/2787/9685

The title of the paper is "Wikis and Collaborative Writing Applications 
in Health Care: A Scoping Review" http://www.jmir.org/2013/10/e210/



You may also take a look at Table 3 in my working paper "Wikipedia 
research and tools: Review and comments"

http://www2.imm.dtu.dk/pubdb/views/edoc_download.php/6012/pdf/imm6012.pdf
Some of the information in this paper has been merged into the JASIST 
and "The People's Encyclopedia" papers.



best regards
Finn Årup Nielsen
DTU Compute, http://www.compute.dtu.dk/~faan/


On 12/08/2013 10:24 PM, Giovanni Luca Ciampaglia wrote:

Hi Arto,

is there a preprint around?

G

On Sat 07 Dec 2013 06:46:16 PM EST, Arto Lanamäki wrote:

Hi,

There are several Wikipedia content assessments conducted in addition
to these mentioned (Giles 2005, Azer 2013, and the one by Helsingin
Sanomat). Our 'Wikilit' literature review project identified 14
reliability assessment studies published until mid-2011. Of these,
eight evaluated Wikipedia favorably, while six assessments provided
negative or inferior results.

That review paper of ours is titled "The sum of all human knowledge: A
systematic review of scholarly research on the content of Wikipedia".
Authors are Mostafa Mesgari, Chitu Okoli, Mohamad Mehdi, Finn Årup
Nielsen and me. It was recently accepted in JASIST.

with kind regards,
Arto Lanamäki


Lähettäjä: wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
[wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] käyttäjän
Daniel Mietchen [daniel.mietc...@googlemail.com] puolesta
Lähetetty: 7. joulukuuta 2013 23:36
Vastaanottaja: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
Aihe: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Fwd: the Helsinki Times evaluates the
Finnish   Wikipedia

I agree that an analysis of the quality of 39 English-language
articles on hepatology does not have much predictive value for an
analysis of the quality of 134 Finnish-language articles on a broader
set of topics (nor vice versa), yet both are about Wikipedia articles,
and since the editorial practices across these two (and most other)
Wikipedias are quite similar, the conclusions drawn from both studies
(by the respective authors or by ourselves) may well be relevant for
the discussion of quality on Wikipedia more generally.

Daniel

On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Laura Hale  wrote:

But that's apples to oranges.  The particular paper research being
referenced in the Finnish text applies only to Finnish Wikipedia.
The other
paper's existence and different conclusions are not relevant to this,
unless
the scope was broader in the paper you cited and focused on Finnish
Wikipedia.


On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Daniel Mietchen
 wrote:


A similar paper on 39 gastroenterology/ hepatology articles on the
English Wikipedia came to different conclusions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Paper:_.22Evaluation_of_gastroenterology_and_hepatology_articles_on_Wikipedia:_Are_they_suitable_as_learning_resources_for_medical_students.3F.22


Daniel

On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 2:20 AM, phoebe ayers 
wrote:

Hello! Thanks for the context :) I thought it was an interesting study
and results, even in the limited english version.

It would be interesting to see replications of this type of study
across languages for several reasons, I think, not the least of which
is the potential effect on public awareness of Wikipedia quality and
issues. I was especially glad that there was a note at the end of this
article about getting involved as a contributor.

best,
Phoebe

On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Arto Lanamäki 
wrote:

Hi,

I'll comment this as I am the researcher who was interviewed and
consulted
for this.

This Helsinki Times article is an English summary of a set of
(Finnish
language) articles that were published in the biggest newspaper in
Finland,
Helsingin Sanomat, last weekend. The article series was written by
journalist Olavi Koistinen, with the help of several of his
colleagues.

I think the Finnish article series was great, but the English summary
loses
some of its context in translation.

The article claims that it is the "world's largest study on
Wikipedia".
What
this means is that it has the biggest sample of articles (134) of all
studies that have assessed Wikipedia con

Re: [Wiki-research-l] WikiDashboard down - anyone knows how to contact people at PARC who developed it?

[Finn Årup Nielsen]

The article behind WikiDashboard is this one:

Lifting the veil: Improving accountability and social transparency in 
Wikipedia with WikiDashboard by Bongwon Suh, Ed H. Chi, Aniket Kittur, 
Bryan A. Pendleton.


Suh, Chi andn Kittur are no longer at Park as far as I see. I can't see 
Suh's email. Chi's is here: chi [at] acm.org. He is also active on 
Google Plus.


See also http://neuro.imm.dtu.dk/wiki/Bongwon_Suh
http://neuro.imm.dtu.dk/wiki/Ed_H._Chi

/Finn


On 06/14/2013 01:53 PM, Piotr Konieczny wrote:

For the last week or so I am getting the following error when trying to
use the http://wikidashboard.appspot.com/ tool: "403: User account
expired. The page you requested is hosted by the Toolserver user
wiki_researcher, whose account has expired. Toolserver user accounts are
automatically expired if the user is inactive for over six months. To
prevent stale pages remaining accessible, we automatically block
requests to expired content. If you think you are receiving this page in
error, or you have a question, please contact the owner of this
document: wiki_researcher [at] toolserver [dot] org. (Please do not
contact Toolserver administrators about this problem, as we cannot fix
it—only the Toolserver account owner may renew their account.)"

I've tried contacting the owner, and send an email to PARC
 (it's their project,
per the logo seen at the project page ) through their web form, but so
far - nothing. Can anyone help to contact them?

The tool is useful not only for research (I've used and I am sure so
have others here); it is also one of the tools used by Good Article
reviewers (and linked from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Good_article_tools)

Why we allow toolserver tools used by the community to expire in such a
confusing way is beyond me.

--
Piotr Konieczny, PhD
http://hanyang.academia.edu/PiotrKonieczny
http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=gdV8_AEJ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Piotrus



___
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] [Wikimedia Award] vote to award 2500€ !

[Finn Årup Nielsen]

I note that the deadline for voting for the "Wikimedia France Research
Award" is today.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_France_Research_Award

It seems to me that there is lacking a discussion of the pros and cons
of the five nominated papers.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_France_Research_Award/nominated_papers

There are summaries, jury comments, and a few voter comments (eg,
Liam Wyatt provides a good one). However, even though I have written a
Wikipedia research review
(http://www2.imm.dtu.dk/pubdb/views/edoc_download.php/6012/pdf/imm6012.pdf) 
it is still not completely clear to me what the merit of each individual 
article is.


Here are a few comments:

"DBpedia: a nucleus for a web of open data" is a very interesting and
influential idea. It is unclear to me to which degree the idea of
DBpedia is different from the YAGO idea presented in "YAGO: a core of
semantic knowledge unifying WordNet and Wikipedia". The difference is
briefly described in section 7 "related work" in the DBpedia paper. Is
this sufficient for the award? Or should we award the DBpedia people
for the tools provided at dbpedia.org?


"A content-driven reputation system for the Wikipedia" from 2007 is on
(what later?) can to be known as the WikiTrust system as far as I
understand. Wikipedia trust computation was also described previously
in, e.g., "Computing Trust from Revision History". Why are we regarding 
"A content-driven reputation system for the Wikipedia" as stronger than 
Zeng and McGuinness papers? I suppose that since the Zeng paper is using

MCMC in BUGS it must be awfully slow?


"Can history be open source? Wikipedia and the future of the past" is
well-written with a great overview, but I have a difficulty in finding
original research questions, apart from the very general "How did it
develop? How does it work? How good is the historical writing? What
are the potential implications for our practice as scholars, teachers,
and purveyors of the past to the general public?"
His comparison of encyclopedia is interesting, but I lack a more
quantitative and methodological approach taken in the Nature paper and
in some of the later studies.


/Finn Årup Nielsen



On 03/08/2013 01:30 AM, Rémi Bachelet wrote:

Dear all,

Wikimédia France, a non-profit organization supporting Wikimedia
projects in France, is launching an international research prize of
2500€ to reward the most influential research work on Wikimedia
projects.

We are now in the final "voting" phase of the Award, so please vote
and forward this mail !

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_France_Research_Award/nominated_papers





best


2012/7/25 Rémi Bachelet mailto:remi.bache...@ec-lille.fr>>

Hi all,


Wikimédia France, a non-profit organization supporting Wikimedia
projects in France, is launching an international research prize to
reward the most influential research work on Wikimedia projects and
free knowledge projects in general.

What is quite new about this award is that everyone can participate:

1. by ranking nominated papers to elect the winner (ranking is shared
with the award jury). 2. by submitting important articles in this
field of research for the Award.

Regarding the latter, we are now in the process of proposing papers
and we'd appreciate if some of you can lend a hand. If you consider a
paper has been particularly important in the field of free
knowledge/Wikipedia studies and must be taken into account, do not
hesitate to submit it now!

Please use this
form:http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_France_Research_Award/papers_submission.





Deadline for paper suggestion is August 1st.



After that, the next phase is shortlisting nominated papers. The
Wikimedia Award Jury will study all proposed papers to submit 5
papers to the final vote in September. The announcement of the winner
is planned in November.

Please find all details here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_France_Research_Award





If you have any questions, please use the project talk page:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Wikimedia_France_Research_Award





Thanks!




___ 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] # of searches where WP is the first hit?

[Finn Årup Nielsen]

Hi Phoebe (and others on the list),


On 13-11-2012 21:47, phoebe ayers wrote:


Are there any solid estimates out there of how many Google [or other]
searches have a Wikipedia article as the first [or second or third...]
hit? Any language breakdowns of this would be super cool as well.


If you look in my "Wikipedia research and tools: Review and comments."
http://www2.imm.dtu.dk/pubdb/views/edoc_download.php/6012/pdf/imm6012.pdf
on page 15 "Popularity" you see a couple of studies using a sample of 
pages:


"Seeking health information online: does Wikipedia matter?"
http://jamia.bmj.com/content/16/4/471.long

http://www.conductor.com/blog/2012/03/wikipedia-in-the-serps-appears-on-page-1-for-60-of-informational-34-transactional-queries/

http://www.intelligentpositioning.com/blog/2012/02/wikipedia-page-one-of-google-uk-for-99-of-searches/

The first one reports around 35% health related queries having Wikipedia 
on top of of the Google result list.

http://jamia.bmj.com/content/16/4/471/T1.expansion.html


I've seen offhand references to this phenomenon in many papers, but
I'm wondering if someone on this list knows of a particularly good
estimate or reliable information.



Google has become 'bubbled'. You could try DuckDuckGo instead, e.g.,

http://duckduckgo.com/?q=Alzheimer+region%3Anone

See also: http://dontbubble.us/


/Finn

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Commercial value of Wikipedia information? (Was: Wikipedia Used to Predict Movie Box Office Revenues )

[Finn Årup Nielsen]

On 08-11-2012 11:16, emijrp wrote:

Using Wikipedia for predicting stock market is being done from some time
ago.


Are there any public information on that? When I search Google Scholar 
for Wikipedia and "Stock price" I see a lot of papers but noone relevant 
on the first pages.



Obviously, the more stream data you have (Wikipedia, Twitter, Facebook,
...), the more info you can extract and attempt to "predict" some
changes in the stock.

Anyway, although Wikipedia license allows reusing the info for any case,
I think that this is a sad case. The effects of stock markets include
famines (speculation of food prices) and other basic goods. A death machine.



A more humane approach for this "big data" is what Google did with their
searches. For example, detecting the spread of flu when people search
"headache" and similar terms.


This has already been done to some degree with Wikipedia. There is this 
marvelous wiki with wiki research ;-), which lists the Laurent/Vickers 
paper:


http://wikipapers.referata.com/wiki/Seeking_health_information_online:_does_Wikipedia_matter%3F

On Wikilit we do not seem to have a good category for trend/event 
detection. We list this paper under Currency and Ranking and popularity 
among other categories:


http://wikilit.referata.com/wiki/Seeking_health_information_online:_does_Wikipedia_matter%3F
and it is summarized under Health Information Source in our review: 
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2021326



In my Wikipedia Review I have a section called "Trend spotting and 
prediction" (pages 18-19) 
http://www2.imm.dtu.dk/pubdb/views/edoc_download.php/6012/pdf/imm6012.pdf


Laurent/Vickers is the only real paper I have included so far. (For some 
reason Nunes' Wikitrends and Summers' Wikichanges webservices do not 
work for me at the moment). Taha Yasseri's pointers to "Bieber no more" 
and his own paper seems to be number 2nd and 3rd.



I do too feel that it is a bit of a sad case with commercialization of 
Wikipedia. I do see COI edits in relation to the companies. In the 
project I am involved in we are interested in corporate social 
responsibility. I guess a focus on CSR instead of stock price would be a 
less sad case.


/Finn


2012/11/8 Taha Yasseri mailto:taha.yas...@gmail.com>>

I think that's a brilliant idea. The point I'd like to make is that
a combination of data from different channels, would work the best.
While for instance, Twitter could be considered as the massive
public view on some product, Wikipedia data would be seen as an
input about more professional individuals with more accurate
information. I think this is the place to point to a recent paper by
Osborne et al: Bieber no more: /First Story Detection/ using
/Twitter/ and /Wikipedia/

<http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fresearch.microsoft.com%2Fen-us%2Fpeople%2Fmilads%2Fosbornetaia2012.pdf&ei=k4GbUKeJH5HPsgaM0YHQCw&usg=AFQjCNHdxw5DgY9-9OMRVx6l5znyknbhgQ>,
where they have used such combination to detect "First Stories".



On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Finn Årup Nielsen mailto:f...@imm.dtu.dk>> wrote:




Kerry Raymond: "A really exciting result would be the ability to
predict stock price movements from WP editing behaviour!"


I am actually funded by a project where we are trying that. We
have looked a bit on Twitter sentiment (like everyone else is
doing), but now also do Wikipedia sentiment analysis for companies.

You see an example here for the Lundbeck pharmaceutical company:

http://rb.imm.dtu.dk/base/c/__Lundbeck
<http://rb.imm.dtu.dk/base/c/Lundbeck>

The plots are for Wikipedia sentiment through time, Twitter
sentiment through time and stock price (plots not aligned
temporally).

Lundbeck had bad publicity last year. One of their drugs was,
without their acceptance, used for executions in United States.
There is a drop in Twitter sentiment in regard to that issue --
and also a slight drop in Wikipedia sentiment. It is unclear to
me whether the stock price movement is related to that media issue.

I have not completed the analysis. But you see some further
    companies here http://rb.imm.dtu.dk/base/c/ Mostly it is only
the Swedish and Danish companies I have run through the
sentiment analysis.


Finn Årup Nielsen

_
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.__wikimedia.org
<mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/__mailman/listinfo/wiki-__research-l
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-resear

[Wiki-research-l] Commercial value of Wikipedia information? (Was: Wikipedia Used to Predict Movie Box Office Revenues )

[Finn Årup Nielsen]

Kerry Raymond: "A really exciting result would be the ability to predict 
stock price movements from WP editing behaviour!"



I am actually funded by a project where we are trying that. We have 
looked a bit on Twitter sentiment (like everyone else is doing), but now 
also do Wikipedia sentiment analysis for companies.


You see an example here for the Lundbeck pharmaceutical company:

http://rb.imm.dtu.dk/base/c/Lundbeck

The plots are for Wikipedia sentiment through time, Twitter sentiment 
through time and stock price (plots not aligned temporally).


Lundbeck had bad publicity last year. One of their drugs was, without 
their acceptance, used for executions in United States. There is a drop 
in Twitter sentiment in regard to that issue -- and also a slight drop 
in Wikipedia sentiment. It is unclear to me whether the stock price 
movement is related to that media issue.


I have not completed the analysis. But you see some further companies 
here http://rb.imm.dtu.dk/base/c/ Mostly it is only the Swedish and 
Danish companies I have run through the sentiment analysis.



Finn Årup Nielsen

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

[Wiki-research-l] Updated Wikipedia literature review working paper (resending)

[Finn Årup Nielsen]

Hi colleagues,


Sorry for spamming you again with our Wikipedia literature review, but 
we found out that some of you might only have received a "scrubbed" 
version of the email we send out 23 October with our announcement and 
with a link to the paper as it presently stands: 
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2021326


Below I am forwarding Chitu Okoli's original email. I hope this resend 
version works better.



Regards
Finn Årup Nielsen



Hi colleagues,

Our research team has posted an updated version of our Wikipedia
literature review at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2021326. The previous
version was quite rough, so we never announced it on this list, though
the Wikimedia Research Newsletter did pick it up. This version is much
better polished and more complete. We would appreciate your looking at
the paper and giving us feedback. Here are some key features of this
updated version of our review:

* It is very long (around 500 references), so we recommend that you
follow the table of contents and only read the sections that cover
topics that actually interest you.
* We include a review of reviews, where we comment on all literature
reviews of Wikipedia that we know of. Please let us know if we missed any!
* We explain our search and inclusion criteria in detail. We couldn't
include everything, but we would appreciate comments.
* We describe and explain the WikiLit website in detail
(http://wikilit.referata.com).
* We explain with an example how to use the website to support your own
literature reviews in searching for studies on Wikipedia.
* We include an extensive list of all Wikipedia-related researcher
resources that we know of. Please suggest anything that we're missing!

We are still very actively compiling and cleaning the data on our
WikiLit website (http://wikilit.referata.com). We thank everyone who has
already contributed to the site, and ask others to please take a look at it:
* In particular, please at least look at your own papers and make sure
that what we have recorded is accurate.
* If we've missed any of your papers, please add them! ("Add
publication" on the left menu.)
* The answer to the challenge question for anonymous contributors is
"Wikipedia".
* Please create an account to skip the challenge question and so that we
can acknowledge you in our paper.

Our next major step will be to do various quantitative analyses based on
the website data (e.g. what research methodologies do studies of
Wikipedia reliability normally use; what kind of Wikipedia data do
studies of participation employ; etc.). Please suggest any such kinds of
analyses you might like to see.

Regards,
Chitu
For the WikiLit project team: Arto Lanamäki, Mohamad Mehdi, Mostafa
Mesgari, Finn Årup Nielsen, Chitu Okoli



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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Research areas

[Finn Årup Nielsen]

On 04-10-2012 19:25, emijrp wrote:

Hi;

I'm compiling a list of research areas inside the study of wikis. I
would like to receive your feedback. Any suggestion or improvement?

See here: http://wikipapers.referata.com/wiki/List_of_research_areas


Did you take a look on the Wikilit structure. We have built two 
hierarchies of research topics, one called "Topics" the other called 
"Domains", see:


http://wikilit.referata.com/w/index.php?title=Special%3ACategoryTree&target=Topics&mode=categories&dotree=Show+tree

http://wikilit.referata.com/w/index.php?title=Special%3ACategoryTree&target=Domains&mode=categories&dotree=Show+tree


There seems to be some overlap between Wikipapers and Wikilit:

http://wikilit.referata.com/wiki/Category:Contributor_motivation

http://wikipapers.referata.com/wiki/Motivations


/Finn
http://www.imm.dtu.dk/~fn/



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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Open-Access journals for papers about wikis

[Finn Årup Nielsen]

I think the infrastructure is there already with MediaWiki and WMF.

It do seem to me that Wikiversity is more about conducting research 
rather than publishing a permanent version, so maybe a more dedicated 
new WMF wiki could be called for with a more specific science publishing 
"brand".


Blind and double-blind review should be possible if the 
user/researcher/reviewer just selects a temporary username only known to 
the editor.


Interaction during the review is through discussion pages.

Peer-review is to a specific revision, possibly with lock of article by 
administrators once peer-reviewed and possibly allocation of a specific 
namespace, e.g., "Paper:". One advantage with a wiki is that you can 
improve the articles which is lost with locking. So perhaps the 
peer-reviewed paper can be copied to another namespace where wikilinks, 
and notes may be added. I suppose that Reference can also be handled on 
such a wiki with a special name space, e.g., Reference:Measuring_Wikipedia


A topic for the journal is not necessary, e.g., PLoS ONE handles all of 
science well and there is no reason to restrict it to (natural) science. 
I work together with medical and business school people and it would be 
nice to have an interdisciplinary journal. The topic is more related to 
selection of editors and reviewers which need to be expert in the 
fields. A "journal volume" is just a page like "List of papers published 
in March 2013 in Imaging Genetics".


For those who want to pay for formatting may do so like they do for many 
OA journals. I suppose some organizational effort may be needed there: 
endorsement of people paid to do, e.g., LaTeXing/DTP of wikitext with 
the result  uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. A certain amount of fee may 
go to the organisation behind/WMF.


One problem is with researchers wanting to keep their submission (which 
may possibly be rejected) hidden. I usually put my articles in our 
departmental public publication database before it is accepted, so I 
would see absolutely no problem with making my submission available 
before acceptance.



/Finn
http://www.imm.dtu.dk/~fn/

On 17-09-2012 00:28, Piotr Konieczny wrote:

I think that an open content journal would be cheap to run. No staff -
everything done by volunteers. Hosting - Wikiversity? Meta?

Perhaps I am missing something, but if so, let me know what money would
be needed for. (I know some journals have paid staff of copyeditors,
issue print copies, and such, but this is not really needed...).

--
Piotr Konieczny

On 9/16/2012 4:12 AM, emijrp wrote:

2012/9/15 Kerry Raymond mailto:kerry.raym...@gmail.com>>

To establish a journal (of any kind), you need a:

  * Topic
  * A community to read, write, review and do editorial duties in
that topic
  * A business model to keep it afloat
  * A set of processes that make it academically respectable (for
the folks who need this for grants, tenure etc)

...

In short, I think the hardest nut to crack is the business model
(i.e. money and people’s time). I think the other things can be
worked out.



Thanks for your valuable tips Kerry.

About the business model, perhaps the journal can't survive by
donations but by entities that receive donations. I'm talking about
Wikimedia chapters. There are some powerfull chapters out there that
may want to support this journal project providing human effort,
resources and some money.

I think that academics and wikipedians must work together, and this
can be another way.

Just an idea...

Kerry



*From:*wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org

[mailto:wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
] *On Behalf
Of *emijrp
*Sent:* Saturday, 15 September 2012 7:12 PM
*To:* dar...@alk.edu.pl ; Research into
Wikimedia content and communities; Samuel Klein
*Subject:* Re: [Wiki-research-l] Open-Access journals for papers
about wikis

The idea of creating a journal just for wikis is highly seductive
for me.The "pillars" might be:

* peer-reviewed, but publish a list of rejected papers and the
reviewers comments
* open-access (CC-BY-SA)
* ask always for the datasets and offer them to download, the same
for the developed software used in the research
* encourage authors to publish early, publish often (as in free
software)
* supported by donations

And... we can open a wiki where those who want can write papers in
a collaborative and public way. You can start a new paper with
colleagues or ask for volunteers authors interested in joining to
your idea. When authors think that paper is finished and stable,
they submit it to the journal and it is peer-reviewed again and
published or discarded and 

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wikimedia France Research Award : call for paper proposals

[Finn Årup Nielsen]

On 19-07-2012 21:37, Rémi Bachelet wrote:


Wikimédia France, a non-profit organization supporting Wikimedia
projects in France, is launching an international research prize to
reward the most influential research work on Wikimedia projects and free
knowledge projects in general.


Interesting! :-)

I wonder what "on Wikimedia projects" precisely mean. Because I suppose 
efforts like DBpedia and Semantic MediaWiki are not "on Wikipedia" but 
rather extending Wikipedia?



-
Finn Årup Nielsen



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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] WikiSym mailing lists

[Finn Årup Nielsen]

On 03/20/2012 02:04 AM, emijrp wrote:


I just discovered these WikiSym mailing lists[1]. Looks like abandoned,
but there are some historical messages and much activity in the first
months after creation.

>
> [...]


[1] http://www.wikisym.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo


They are not entirely abandoned. There are wiki-research beyond 
Wikipedia-research. :-)  There is not much discussion at the moment on 
the mailing lists, but wiki-research relevant meetings are announced there.



/Finn Årup Nielsen

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Motivations to Contribute to Wikipedia

[Finn Årup Nielsen]

Dear Audrey,


On 03/19/2012 08:43 PM, emijrp wrote:


On WikiPapers we have some publications about that subject
http://wikipapers.referata.com/wiki/Motivations


Regarding: "Extant literature on this topic is lacking".

As you see Emijrp has collected 10 papers categorized under motivation 
in his WikiPapers, and in the recently announce Wikilit group we have 
also many papers on motivation (mostly collected by the four other 
members of the Wikilit group), see e.g., this category with 30 papers:


http://wikilit.referata.com/wiki/Category:Contributor_motivation

Also the parent category:

http://wikilit.referata.com/wiki/Category:Antecedents_of_participation

52 papers are under this category. There is room for an entire review on 
its own. :-)



Cheers,
Finn



2012/3/17 Audrey Abeyta mailto:audrey.abe...@gmail.com>>

Hello all,

I am an undergraduate student at the University of California, Santa
Barbara, conducting a senior honors thesis on users' motivations to
contribute to Wikipedia. A more detailed description of the project
can be read here:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Motivations_to_Contribute_to_Wikipedia

My project's success is dependent on the valuable responses of
Wikipedia contributors, which I am collecting through an online
questionnaire. This brief questionnaire is completely anonymous and
should take approximately 10 minutes to complete. If any of you are
willing to complete this questionnaire, it can be accessed here:
https://us1.us.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_8ixU9RkozemzC4s.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns.

Thank you in advance for your help!

Sincerely,

Audrey Abeyta


___
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] WikiPapers: all the literature about wikis compiled in a... wiki

[Finn Årup Nielsen]

On 01/26/2012 01:56 PM, emijrp wrote:


Hi Finn. Congrats for your survey draft, it is the most complete wiki
survey by now. Are you working on it yet?


Thanks. Yes, I am working on it from time to time. I have uploaded a new 
version with minor additions:


http://www2.imm.dtu.dk/pubdb/views/edoc_download.php/6012/pdf/imm6012.pdf


/Finn

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] WikiPapers: all the literature about wikis compiled in a... wiki

[Finn Årup Nielsen]

On 02/05/2012 05:14 PM, Dan Bolser wrote:
> On 3 February 2012 19:48, emijrp  wrote:


I have to look at the Semantic MediaWiki features for export/import data. I
know that there are some RDF options, but I have not tested yet.


I've been researching it for a different project, and I've written it
up what I have done so far here:
http://bioblog5000.blogspot.com/2012/02/seqwiki-integration-with-neuolex.html


The blog post doesn't show for me.



Talking of data sharing, do you both use the same (standard?) data
model for describing publications? i.e. using the Dublin core
ontology? (Sorry for not going to check that, I figure just ask ;-)



Following the parameters in this
link http://www.cs.umd.edu/projects/plus/SHOE/onts/dublin.html , this is the
WikiPapers model:
TITLE ->  title
CREATOR ->  author
SUBJECT ->  keywords
DESCRIPTION ->  abstract
PUBLISHER ->  published in
CONTRIBUTOR ->  ?
DATE ->  year
TYPE ->  type
FORMAT ->  ?
IDENTIFIER ->  doi, arXiv, PubMed, isbn, issn
SOURCE ->  ?
LANGUAGE ->  language
RELATION ->  ?
COVERAGE ->  ?
RIGHTS ->  license

format and relation have not been formally defined by Dublin. I'm not sure
what info adds 'contributor' to 'creator', 'source' to 'publisher' and
'coverage' to 'abstract/keywords'.


I think I have never really understood the use of Dublin Core. To me it 
seems that it does not map well with the usual academic references in 
Bibtex, cite journal of Wikipedia,  You need journal, volume, issue, 
paper for journal papers and editor, booktitle for conference papers.


You can see my (partial?) mapping to Dublin core on:

http://neuro.imm.dtu.dk/wiki/Template:Paper

Cheers
Finn

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Workshop call for participation: WikiLit: Collecting the Wiki and Wikipedia Literature at WikiSym 2011

[Finn Årup Nielsen]

Dear Reid and Phoebe,

I suppose that this Workshop is going on today.

On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 17:42 +0200, Reid Priedhorsky wrote:
> On 8/31/11 8:53 PM, Daniel Mietchen wrote:

> > I would love to participate, but can't make it to WikiSym. Do you see
> > a way to participate online?

Me too.

> Hi Daniel,
> 
> Glad to hear of your enthusiasm, and sorry to hear you won't be able to
> attend. In terms of remote participation, I have a couple of suggestions.
> 
> 1. Before the workshop, we'd love to hear any thoughts you might have.
> Do you have time to briefly write up problems, solutions, observations,
> etc. that you see in this space? If so, you could e-mail those to Phoebe
> and myself; I'm sure they would be helpful in guiding the discussion.

I maintain the Brede Wiki http://neuro.imm.dtu.dk/wiki/Main_Page which
is related to AcaWiki. I have topical pages, e.g., about Wikipedia
research http://neuro.imm.dtu.dk/wiki/Wikipedia where I record links to
research papers. On some pages I describe individual scientific papers
(like AcaWiki):

http://neuro.imm.dtu.dk/wiki/Detecting_Wikipedia_vandalism_with_active_learning_and_statistical_language_models

http://neuro.imm.dtu.dk/wiki/Category:Wikipedia

I keep structured information in templates and can generate BibTeX.

I also keep numerical data in csv pages, enabling numerical
computations, see, e.g., http://neuro.imm.dtu.dk/wiki/MaND


> 2. One of the products of the workshop will be proposals for what do to
> moving forward, for the community to consider, develop further, and
> perhaps implement. We will publish and announce here. These will
> necessarily include a strong, if not exclusive, online component. I
> don't know what this will look like, but I'm sure there will be a great
> need for participation by folks like yourself.
> 
> I think we do not have the infrastructure to offer meaningful remote
> live participation during the actual workshop, sadly. We might be able
> to do stuff like liveblogging or tweeting. I'll talk with Phoebe.

I might keep a look out on etherpad today
http://etherpad.wikimedia.org/wikisym2011


best regards
Finn

-- 
Finn Årup Nielsen, DTU Informatics, http://www.imm.dtu.dk/~fn/


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

[Wiki-research-l] WikiSym 2011 Early-bird registration ends August 29

[Finn Årup Nielsen]

WikiSym 2011, The International Symposium on Wikis and Open
Collaboration, taking place October 3-5, 2011 in Mountain View,
California has early-bird registration that ends August 29. That is
today!

Register at:

http://www.wikisym.org/


/Finn
-- 
Finn Årup Nielsen, DTU Informatics
http://www.imm.dtu.dk/~fn/ +45 45 25 39 21.


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