Re: [Wiki-research-l] Interesting Wikipedia studies
In Wikidata we have annotated 1873 items (articles, books, etc.) as about Wikipedia. Some of them are listed in Scholia: https://scholia.toolforge.org/topic/Q52 Halfaker et al's "2013" paper, as mentioned, I would also mention. Apart from that there is the famous Nature editorial article "Internet encyclopaedias go head to head" from 2005 which may have contributed to Wikipedia rise. I think it is the most cited Wikipedia study. It has 3182 Google Scholar citations. And it is the most cited study among the Wikipedia works in Wikidata. best regards Finn On 18/12/2020 18.23, Jeremy Foote wrote: When it comes to understanding relationships between multiple language editions, I think that Bao et al.'s work on Omnipedia has a bunch of great insights for how to think about and measure relationships between content in different editions. Bao, P., Hecht, B., Carton, S., Quaderi, M., Horn, M., & Gergle, D. (2012). Omnipedia: Bridging the wikipedia language gap. *Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems*, 1075–1084. https://doi.org/10.1145/2208516.2208553 On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 11:00 AM Johan Jönsson wrote: Den fre 18 dec. 2020 kl 16:23 skrev Morten Wang : Halfaker et al's 2013 paper digs deeply into answering why the Wikipedia community started declining in 2007. They find that the quality assurance processes that were created to deal with the firehose of content coming in with the exponential growth around 2004–2005 also end up discarding good-faith contributions. This highlights the problem of how to do quality assurance while also being a welcoming community to newcomers who are struggling to learn all of Wikipedia's various rules and conventions (see also the Teahouse paper). I think we need to start recommending it with a short explanation on current trends and mention that it describes a piece of Wikipedia history (where the mechanics behind the trend could still be relevant). You see the same curve in a number of other languages (especially languages mainly spoken in northern Europe), and like English they've typically flattened out, English already around 2014, other number of languages with a similar trend around 2018, yet we can still read that the Wikipedia editorship is in decline in the present tense in papers and articles on English Wikipedia published in 2020, referencing The Rise and Decline. //Johan Jönsson -- ___ 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
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Bibliography of wiki related works
I tend to add literature to Wikidata rather than any other wiki. I think Wikidata might give the best overview. There may be multiple topics in Scholia that are relevant: wiki: https://scholia.toolforge.org/topic/Q171 wikipedia: https://scholia.toolforge.org/topic/Q52 (as Gerard mentions) Though the user interface is currently only in English, Scholia should also list items that refers to works in other language, see, e.g., for the page for Wikiversity: https://scholia.toolforge.org/topic/Q370 Unfortunately, Scholia does not link the description in the https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter. One way to get the information from the research newsletter more discoverable could be to move it to Wikiversity and link that with Wikidata. Scholia already includes English Wikiversity abstract, if available, see, e.g., https://scholia.toolforge.org/use/Q30309204 For "Wikipedia in the eyes of its beholders: A systematic review of scholarly research on wikipedia readers and readership" that Jodi Schneider referred to, we set a deadline to June 2011, so article published after that day is likely not mentioned in that review and its sister reviews. /Finn On 12/10/2020 10:40, Gerard Meijssen wrote: Hoi, The best way to learn about scholarly publications about Wikipedia is in Wikidata. It is superior because Scholia [1] will inform you about these publications, their authors, the topic in context etc. If Scholia has one drawback, it is that it is English only. Thanks, GerardM [1] https://scholia.toolforge.org/topic/Q52 On Sat, 10 Oct 2020 at 12:27, Ziko van Dijk wrote: Dear colleagues, Here a remark/question(s) about the way how we keep record in the Wikimedia movement with regard to research papers and books about wiki related topics. It seems to me that we have several pages for collaborative collecting the titles. For example, my first look would lead me to a bibliography page on Meta-Wiki [1]. But we have also such a page on Englisch WP [2] and on German WP, even two [3] etc. Sometimes the pages have different goals: do they collect "all" literature" or only "relevant" titles or titles in a specific language; or are they rather a list of "recommended" works etc. Often, the pages are obviously incomplete and not up to date. Some end with the year 2019 (or actually, were not continued in the Corona times?). What do you think? Did I simply not find the "right" page? Or what would be the best solution for creating one single page or database of wiki related works? Including machine readable information about language, specific sub topic, links to reviews etc.? And, of course, there remains the question what is actually a wiki related work. Often a book does not have "wiki" in its title but deals with "online creation communities" or "peer production" or "social media" and has a large chapter on wikis. Kind regards Ziko [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Research_Bibliography [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_studies_of_Wikipedia [3] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedistik/Bibliographie and https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedistik/Arbeiten ___ 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
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Content similarity between two Wikipedia articles
Dear Haifeng, Would you not be able to use ordinary information retrieval techniques such as bag-of-words/phrases and tfidf? Explicit semantic analysis (ESA) uses this approach (though its primary focus is word semantic similarity). There are a few papers for ESA: https://tools.wmflabs.org/scholia/topic/Q5421270 I have also used it in "Open semantic analysis: The case of word level semantics in Danish" http://www2.compute.dtu.dk/pubdb/views/edoc_download.php/7029/pdf/imm7029.pdf Finn Årup Nielsen http://people.compute.dtu.dk/faan/ On 04/05/2019 13:47, Haifeng Zhang wrote: Dear folks, Is there a way to compute content similarity between two Wikipedia articles? For example, I can think of representing each article as a vector of likelihoods over possible topics. But, I wonder there are other work people have already explored in the past. Thanks, Haifeng ___ 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] Sampling new editors in English Wikipedia
Haifeng, On 13/03/2019 15:56, Haifeng Zhang wrote: Thanks for pointing me to Quarray, Finn. I tried a couple queries, but not sure why all took forever to get result. I am not familiar with Quarry. It might have a timeout. The user table associated with the English Wikipedia is quite large, so any operation on that may take long time. You might be able to get "timein" with a simplified SQL. For instance, the query below takes 52.35 seconds: USE enwiki_p; SELECT user_id, user_name, user_registration, user_editcount FROM user LIMIT 1000 OFFSET 3200 Is it possible to download relevant Media Wiki database tables (e.g., user, user_groups, logging) and run SQL in my local machine? There are SQL files available here https://dumps.wikimedia.org/enwiki/20190301/ but I do not think the user table is there, - at least I cannot identify it. Perhaps other people would know. You might be able try the Toolforge https://tools.wmflabs.org/ You should be able to access the tables via mysql on the prompt. Login to dev.tools.wmflabs.org Then do "sql enwiki" Read more about Toolforge here: https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Toolforge /Finn Thanks, Haifeng Zhang From: Wiki-research-l on behalf of f...@imm.dtu.dk Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2019 7:25:53 PM To: wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Sampling new editors in English Wikipedia Haifeng , While some suggests the dumps or notice boards, my immediate thought was a database query, e.g., through Quarry. It just happens that Jonathan T. Morgan has created a query there: https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/310 SELECT user_id, user_name, user_registration, user_editcount FROM enwiki_p.user WHERE user_registration > DATE_FORMAT(DATE_SUB(NOW(),INTERVAL 1 DAY),'%Y%m%d%H%i%s') AND user_editcount > 10 AND user_id NOT IN (SELECT ug_user FROM enwiki_p.user_groups WHERE ug_group = 'bot') AND user_name not in (SELECT REPLACE(log_title,"_"," ") from enwiki_p.logging where log_type = "block" and log_action = "block" and log_timestamp > DATE_FORMAT(DATE_SUB(NOW(),INTERVAL 2 DAY),'%Y%m%d%H%i%s')); You may fork from that query. There is R. Stuart Geiger (Staeiou)'s fork here https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/34256 querying for month, - as another example. Finn Årup Nielsen http://people.compute.dtu.dk/faan/ On 12/03/2019 19:18, Haifeng Zhang wrote: Hi folks, My work needs to randomly sample new editors in each month, e.g., 100 editors per month. Do any of you have good suggestions for how to do this efficiently? I could think of using the dump files, but wonder are there other options? Thanks, Haifeng Zhang ___ 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.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Sampling new editors in English Wikipedia
Haifeng , While some suggests the dumps or notice boards, my immediate thought was a database query, e.g., through Quarry. It just happens that Jonathan T. Morgan has created a query there: https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/310 SELECT user_id, user_name, user_registration, user_editcount FROM enwiki_p.user WHERE user_registration > DATE_FORMAT(DATE_SUB(NOW(),INTERVAL 1 DAY),'%Y%m%d%H%i%s') AND user_editcount > 10 AND user_id NOT IN (SELECT ug_user FROM enwiki_p.user_groups WHERE ug_group = 'bot') AND user_name not in (SELECT REPLACE(log_title,"_"," ") from enwiki_p.logging where log_type = "block" and log_action = "block" and log_timestamp > DATE_FORMAT(DATE_SUB(NOW(),INTERVAL 2 DAY),'%Y%m%d%H%i%s')); You may fork from that query. There is R. Stuart Geiger (Staeiou)'s fork here https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/34256 querying for month, - as another example. Finn Årup Nielsen http://people.compute.dtu.dk/faan/ On 12/03/2019 19:18, Haifeng Zhang wrote: Hi folks, My work needs to randomly sample new editors in each month, e.g., 100 editors per month. Do any of you have good suggestions for how to do this efficiently? I could think of using the dump files, but wonder are there other options? Thanks, Haifeng Zhang ___ 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] Gender gap statistics
(sorry for cross-posting on wiki-research and wikidata) For an event, I am trying for find statistics about the gender gap. At one point there was a nice website with some information. Now it seems to be gone. https://denelezh.dicare.org/gender-gap.php redirects to https://wdcm.wmflabs.org/WDCM_BiasesDashboard/ but I get "502 Bad Gateway" For http://whgi.wmflabs.org/gender-by-date-of-birth.html I see changes statistics on a web page. (when I view this page it seems as if the CSS is missing) I have trying Wikidata Query Service. I have a few results here: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Fnielsen/Gender The bad news is that more complex SPARQL queries time out, e.g. Persons across Wikipedias and genders, - I can only do it on Wikisource and Wikiquote. For instance, I find the ratio of female biographies on the Danish Wikipedia to be 17.2% compared to the total number of biographies. It would be interesting to know how this number compares with other Wikipedias. If I include Wikipedia as a parameter in the SPARQL query it times out. (Writing a script could possibly solve it). For WHGI, I see som CSV files. For instance, https://figshare.com/articles/Wikidata_Human_Gender_Indicators/3100903 It reports 9447 and 51774 for women and men, respectively. My SPARQL query does not give these values... Do we have updated statistics on contributor gender, particularly for Danish Wikipedia? I know we have some papers on gender and Wikipedia, see https://tools.wmflabs.org/scholia/topic/Q17002416 "Gender Markers in Wikipedia Usernames" displays 4,6% or 1.2% for females, while "The Wikipedia Gender Gap Revisited: Characterizing Survey Response Bias with Propensity Score Estimation" estimates up to 23%. The old UNU survey https://web.archive.org/web/20110728182835/http://www.wikipediastudy.org/docs/Wikipedia_Overview_15March2010-FINAL.pdf seems not to do gender statistics per Wikipedia. https://stats.wikimedia.org seems not to have any gender statistics. -- 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] URL-addressable Predicate Calculus
Interesting.
Why would you have the prefix "https://machine.wikipedia.org/";. This
could be useful for many projects particular Wikidata, - not just
wikipedia. Would "https://wikimachine.org/"; or something be better?
"mw" is used as prefix for https://www.mediawiki.org and mw2sparql
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MW2SPARQL
"mw:P2" does not seem to be supported by SPARQL and < and >
are not allowed in IRI_REF. Ordinary parentheses seems to be allowed.
The rule is '<' ([^<>"{}|^`\]-[#x00-#x20])* '>'
"mw:P1(arg0, arg1, arg2)" and "mw:P2" Why are there two
kinds of input? Wouldn't one suffice.
"mw:P1" Why are the identifiers prefixed with P? That collides with the
Wikidata properties.
"mw:P1(arg0, arg1, arg2)" This form does not allow for optional arguments.
There is also the question of what should be returned. There should be
room for error messaging.
One idea I have not followed through is to make an empty SPARQL endpoint
that would just provide SPARQL functions (extension functions). This way
the function could possibly be used in a federated query.
best regards
Finn Årup Nielsen
On 10/17/18 11:32 AM, Adam Sobieski wrote:
I would like to share, for discussion, some knowledge representation ideas with
respect to a URL-addressable predicate calculus.
In the following examples, we can use the prefix “mw” for
“https://machine.wikipedia.org/” as per
xmlns:mw="https://machine.wikipedia.org/"; .
mw:P1
→ https://machine.wikipedia.org/P1
mw:P1(arg0, arg1, arg2)
→ https://machine.wikipedia.org/P1?A0=arg0&A1=arg1&A2=arg2
mw:P2
→ https://machine.wikipedia.org/P2
mw:P2
→ https://machine.wikipedia.org/P2?T0=t0&T1=t1&T2=t2
mw:P2(arg0, arg1, arg2)
→ https://machine.wikipedia.org/P2?T0=t0&T1=t1&T2=t2&A0=arg0&A1=arg1&A2=arg2
Some points:
1. There is a mapping between each predicate calculus expression and a URL.
2. Navigating to mapped-to URLs results in processing on servers, e.g. PHP
scripts, which generates outputs.
3. The outputs vary per the content types requested via HTTP request headers.
4. The outputs may also vary per the languages requested via HTTP request
headers.
5. Navigating to https://machine.wikipedia.org/P1 generates a definition for a
predicate.
6. Navigating to https://machine.wikipedia.org/P2?T0=t0&T1=t1&T2=t2 generates a
definition for a predicate after assigning values to the parameters T0, T1, T2. That
is, a definition of a predicate is generated by a script, e.g. a PHP script, which may
vary its output based on the values for T0, T1, T2.
7. The possible values for T0, T1, T2, A0, A1, A2 may be drawn from the same
set. T0, T1, T2 need not be constrained to be types from a type system.
8. The values for T0, T1, T2, A0, A1, A2, that is t0, t1, t2, arg0, arg1, arg2,
could also each resolve to URLs.
Best regards,
Adam Sobieski
http://www.phoster.com/contents/
___
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] Machine-utilizable Crowdsourced Lexicons
Dear Adam, Are you aware of our current efforts in Wikidata with the new lexeme support that was announce last week? Search and SPARQL support is very limited, but I suspect it might come in some months time. Translations and senses should also be on its way. You can search for lemma and forms at Ordia: https://tools.wmflabs.org/ordia/ For instance, "Luftballon": https://tools.wmflabs.org/ordia/L99 The Wikidata lexeme item is here https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Lexeme:L99 We got around 2035 lexemes. /Finn On 05/30/2018 03:01 AM, Adam Sobieski wrote: INTRODUCTION Machine-utilizable lexicons can enhance a great number of speech and natural language technologies. Scientists, engineers and technologists – linguists, computational linguists and artificial intelligence researchers – eagerly await the advancement of machine lexicons which include rich, structured metadata and machine-utilizable definitions. Wiktionary, a collaborative project to produce a free-content multilingual dictionary, aims to describe all words of all languages using definitions and descriptions. The Wiktionary project, brought online in 2002, includes 139 spoken languages and American sign language [1]. This letter hopes to inspire exploration into and discussion regarding machine wiktionaries, machine-utilizable crowdsourced lexicons, and services which could exist at https://machine.wiktionary.org/ . LEXICON EDITIONING The premise of editioning is that one version of the resource can be more or less frozen, e.g. a 2018 edition, while wiki editors collaboratively work on a next version, e.g. a 2019 edition. Editioning can provide stability for complex software engineering scenarios utilizing an online resource. Some software engineering teams, however, may choose to utilize fresh dumps or data exports of the freshest edition. SEMANTIC WEB A machine-utilizable lexicon could include a semantic model of its contents and a SPARQL endpoint. MACHINE-UTILIZABLE DEFINITIONS Machine-utilizable definitions, available in a number of knowledge representation formats, can be granular, detailed and nuanced. There exist a large number of use cases for machine-utilizable definitions. One use case is providing natural language processing components with the capabilities to semantically interpret natural language, to utilize automated reasoning to disambiguate lexemes, phrases and sentences in contexts. Some contend that the best output after a natural language processing component processes a portion of natural language is each possible interpretation, perhaps weighted via statistics. In this way, (1) natural language processing components could process ambiguous language, (2) other components, e.g. automated reasoning components, could narrow sets of hypotheses utilizing dialogue contexts, (3) other components, e.g. automated reasoning components, could narrow sets of hypotheses utilizing knowledgebase content, and (4) mixed-initiative dialogue systems could also ask users questions to narrow sets of hypotheses. Such disambiguation and interpretation would utilize machine-utilizable definitions of senses of lexemes. CONJUGATION, DECLENSION AND THE URL-BASED SPECIFICATION OF LEXEMES AND LEXICAL PHRASES A grammatical category [2] is a property of items within the grammar of a language; it has a number of possible values, sometimes called grammemes, which are normally mutually exclusive within a given category. Verb conjugation, for example, may be affected by the grammatical categories of: person, number, gender, tense, aspect, mood, voice, case, possession, definiteness, politeness, causativity, clusivity, interrogativity, transitivity, valency, polarity, telicity, volition, mirativity, evidentiality, animacy, associativity, pluractionality, reciprocity, agreement, polypersonal agreement, incorporation, noun class, noun classifiers, and verb classifiers in some languages [3]. By combining the grammatical categories from each and every language together, we can precisely specify a conjugation or declension. For example, the URL: https://machine.wiktionary.org/wiki/lookup.php?edition=2018&language=en-US&lemma=fly&category=verb&person=first-person&number=singular&tense=past&aspect=past_simple&mood=indicative&… includes an edition, a language of a lemma, a lemma, a lexical category, and conjugates (with ellipses) the verb in a language-independent manner. We can further specify, via URL query string, the semantic sense of a grammatical element: https://machine.wiktionary.org/wiki/lookup.php?edition=2018&language=en-US&lemma=fly&category=verb&person=first-person&number=singular&tense=past&aspect=past_simple&mood=indicative&...&sense=4 Specifying a grammatical item fully in a URL query string, as indicated in the previous examples, could result in a redirection to another URL. That is, the URL: https://machine.wiktionary.org/wiki/lookup.php?edition=2018&language=en-US&lemma=fly&ca
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Blog post comments closed after reply to mine
What would be the best way to record - in Wikidata - that a paper has been described in Wikimedia Research Newsletter? I have made an attempt here: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q48556446#P1343 /Finn On 02/12/2018 05:45 PM, Ed Erhart wrote: Hey Andy, I've seen this and will follow up with you directly. --Ed On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 6:23 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote: I'm rather irked to be notified of a reply to my comment on: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/12/27/research- newsletter-september-2017 only to find that comments are closed, so I cannot reply there. Can the closure be undone, please? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ 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] OpenSym 2018 | August 22-24, 2018 | Paris, France | General Call for Papers | Deadline March 15, 2018
A few extra notes:
On Wikidata we have P4419 for VideoLectures. There are only 47 linked at
the moment.
SELECT ?item ?itemLabel ?url WHERE {
?item wdt:P4419 ?videolectures .
BIND(URI(CONCAT('http://videolectures.net/', ?videolectures)) AS ?url)
SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language
"[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
}
https://query.wikidata.org/#SELECT%20%3Fitem%20%3FitemLabel%20%3Furl%20WHERE%20%7B%0A%20%20%3Fitem%20wdt%3AP4419%20%3Fvideolectures%20.%0A%20%20BIND%28URI%28CONCAT%28%27http%3A%2F%2Fvideolectures.net%2F%27%2C%20%3Fvideolectures%29%29%20AS%20%3Furl%29%0A%20%20SERVICE%20wikibase%3Alabel%20%7B%20bd%3AserviceParam%20wikibase%3Alanguage%20%22%5BAUTO_LANGUAGE%5D%2Cen%22.%20%7D%0A%7D
For KDD 2010 at http://videolectures.net/kdd2010_washington/ the three
invited talks have 1500 views (I do not know what a VideoLectures "view"
is, whether it is a complete view or just starting the video).
An opportunity with videos on Commons is to describe them on Wikidata so
that they can be queried with the Wikidata Query Service and become more
discoverable. We have recently started to add handling of events to
Scholia https://tools.wmflabs.org/scholia/. It would be interesting to
include videos to the Scholia pages describing scientific meetings.
Encouraging conference speakers to upload screencast could be another
possibility.
I wonder if there is any statistics on Wikimedia Commons video views?
As a P.S.: I find it interesting that videos can be reused out of
context, e.g., Wikinews videos on Korean matters were reused on the
page on Robert Kelly:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kelly_(political_analyst)
Finn Årup Nielsen
http://people.compute.dtu.dk/faan/
On 01/18/2018 08:45 PM, Leila Zia wrote:
Hi Nicolas,
While I appreciate the desire and commitment to be open by default and
I am big supporter of Aaron's reminders to all of us for staying open
as much as we can, I'd like to put some different perspective here, as
the topic of video-recording for academic conferences has been
relatively hot in the past few years. :)
I do believe that the organizers of academic conferences (and I
emphasize on the academic component, I do have very different
perspectives for a conference such as Wikimania or an event like
WikiCite) should consider cost tradeoffs very carefully when choosing
to record the sessions at all or not. For context, I'm the general
co-chair for The Web Conference 2019 (a.k.a., WWW2019) and we actively
discuss this topic in the context of that conference. Some things to
consider:
* The cost of recording (almost) all sessions, depending on where you
organize the conference can be really high. For example, for a
conference in San Francisco, unless the conference is organized on a
federal land (which is not the case for TWC2019), we cannot have
volunteers recording the sessions. Professional crew will have to do
it, and one will have to look at the costs carefully. We will be
talking certainly about more than $150K.
* KDD has been doing recording of many of its sessions in the past
couple of years. The view counts of these videos are not very high. I
understand that view counts is not the only measure of success for a
video, but I also would argue that if the cost is very high, and
resources are constrained, someone should look into the value the
recording will bring for the global community of researchers.
* In the limited subset of conferences I attend or I'm in network of,
year in and year out, Networking is chosen as the top reason for
coming to the conference. Many choose to attend a few talks and spend
the rest of the time just talking to people. :) Just today a colleague
reminded me of this: people who attend these conferences have already
decided what is the most valuable item for them in this conference.
Why should we take the second or third most favorite part of the
conference and record it for others? Why don't we focus on the top
commodity and make it available to those who can't attend? This is
something to keep in mind.
* Someone should seriously look into this, but there is argument to be
made that if the money spent on recording is very large compared to
the size of the budget for the conference, channeling that to student
scholarships and providing an opportunity to students who normally
would not make it to these conferences to experience the networking
side of the conference (which is rated very high usually in surveys)
can be a better choice. I'm not talking about providing scholarships
to the students who would make it anyway, but thinking carefully about
those who would never make it on their own unless we would proactively
reach out to them and help them make the journey happen.
Good luck with organizing OpenSym. I have even a bigger respect now
that I'm at this side of a big conference for people like you and your
colleagues who stand up, many times as volunteers, and make these
conferences happen. :)
Best,
Leila
--
Leil
Re: [Wiki-research-l] link rot
On 06/26/2017 04:43 PM, Mark J. Nelson wrote: James Salsman writes: Is anyone studying the rate at which external links become unavailable on Wikipedia projects? There've been a few studies over the years, but none of the ones I know of are recent. One from 2011 that may nonetheless be interesting is: P. Tzekou, S. Stamou, N. Kirtsis, N. Zotos. Quality assessment of Wikipedia external links. In Proceedings of Web Information Systems and Technologies (WEBIST) 2011. http://www.dblab.upatras.gr/download/nlp/NLP-Group-Pubs/11-WEBIST_Wikipedia_External_Links.pdf -Mark There is a Japanese study from the same year: Characteristics of external links and dead links in Japanese Wikipedia https://dx.doi.org/10.2964/JSIK.21_06 This was found on the Scholia page for the link rot topic: https://tools.wmflabs.org/scholia/topic/Q1193907 /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] Request: Studies of external impacts of Wikipedia
I didn't find much for my review. Page 55 in: http://www2.compute.dtu.dk/pubdb/views/edoc_download.php/6012/pdf/imm6012.pdf There is an impact on the encyclopaedia market. :) The downfall of Encarta gets attributed to Wikipedia. There is a recent paper from Shane Greenstein on the Encarta/Britannica story (not that much about Wikipedia). http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/Reference%20Wars%20-%20Greenstein_6c4ac193-51eb-4758-a5a6-a4c412261411.pdf - Finn Aarup Nielsen On 01/24/2017 11:19 PM, Aaron Halfaker wrote: Wikipedia has probably had some substantial external impacts. Are there any studies quantifying them? Maybe increased scientific literacy? Or maybe GDP rises with access to Wikipedia? Are there any studies that have explored how Wikipedia has affected economic or social issues? I'm looking for any references you've got. -Aaron ___ 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
