[Wiki-research-l] Re: updating the wikipedia page: "Wikipedia:List of academic studies about Wikipedia"
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"
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"
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"
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
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 <dandree...@wikimedia.org <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
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
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
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 fabian.flo...@gesis.org 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 oke...@wikimedia.org 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]
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] Quality on different language version
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 m...@anderswennersten.se 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] published articles about Wikipedia translation
We have Emilio's Wikipapers and our WikiLit. Searching: http://wikipapers.referata.com/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearchsearch=translation http://wikilit.referata.com/w/index.php?search=translationtitle=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] Fwd: the Helsinki Times evaluates the Finnish Wikipedia
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] k#228;ytt#228;j#228;n 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 la...@fanhistory.com 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 daniel.mietc...@googlemail.com 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 phoebe.w...@gmail.com 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 arto.lanam...@uia.no 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 content
Re: [Wiki-research-l] gastroenterology and hepatology articles (was Re: Fwd: the Helsinki Times evaluates...)
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] [Wikimedia Award] vote to award 2500€ !
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 remi.bache...@ec-lille.fr 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
[Wiki-research-l] Commercial value of Wikipedia information? (Was: Wikipedia Used to Predict Movie Box Office Revenues )
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
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wikimedia France Research Award : call for paper proposals
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] Workshop call for participation: WikiLit: Collecting the Wiki and Wikipedia Literature at WikiSym 2011
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
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
