Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Foundation-l] WikiCite - new WMF project? Was: UPEI's proposal for a universal citation index

2010-07-27 Thread Finn Aarup Nielsen 



On Tue, 27 Jul 2010, John Vandenberg wrote:



On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 12:06 AM, Jodi Schneider
jodi.schnei...@deri.org wrote:

...
[3] Other side-effects might be helping to identify what's highly cited in
Wikipedia (which would be interesting -- and might help prioritize
Wikisource additions), automatically adding quotes to Wikiquote, ...


I don't think this has been raised on this list.

The academic journals project hosts Journals cited by Wikipedia
using the {{cite}} data.  It is broken down by usage count.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:JCW


I also have statistics of that sort. The corresponding to your Top 
journals


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Journals_cited_by_Wikipedia/Popular1

is this:

http://neuro.imm.dtu.dk/services/wikipedia/enwiki-20080312-ref-articlejournal_highlycited.html

From the 2008 dump and based on the 'cite journal' template. For some of 
the statistics I skipped the citations added automatically from the 
Protein Box Bot. I have built a small file which can aggregate the 
different names of popular journals. It is available from here:


http://neuro.imm.dtu.dk/services/brededatabase/wojous.xml

and my be useful for WP:JCW.

On the same site is results from different clusterings of the Wikipedia 
citations, for example:


http://neuro.imm.dtu.dk/services/wikipedia/enwiki-20080312-ref-articlejournal_clustering_10.html


The main page is 
http://neuro.imm.dtu.dk/services/wikipedia/citejournalminer.html

/Finn

___

 Finn Aarup Nielsen, DTU Informatics, Denmark
 Lundbeck Foundation Center for Integrated Molecular Brain Imaging
   http://www.imm.dtu.dk/~fn/  http://nru.dk/staff/fnielsen/
___
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Foundation-l] WikiCite - new WMF project? Was: UPEI's proposal for a universal citation index

2010-07-26 Thread Samuel Klein 
Jakob writes:
 there already *are* communities that collect and share bibliographic data

I would be happy if anyone does what I was describing; no point in
reinventing what already exists.  But I have not found it:

I mean a public collection of citations, with reader-editable
commentary and categorization, for published works.  Something that
Open Library could link to from each of its books, that arXiv.org and
PLoS could link to from each of its articles.   Something that, for
better or worse, Wikipedia articles could link to also, when they are
cited as sources.


Jodi Schneider jodi.schnei...@deri.org wrote:

 I think focusing on Wikimedia's citation needs is the most promising,
 especially if this is intended to be a WMF project.

Agreed.  That is clearly the place to start, as it was with Commons.

And, as with Commons, the project should be free to develop its own
scope, and be more than a servant project to the others.  That scope
may be grand (a collection of all educational freely licensed media; a
general collection of citations), but shouldn't keep us from getting
started now.

 As for mission -- yes -- let's talk about what problem we're trying to
 solve. Two central ones come to mind:
 1. Improve verifiability by making it possible to start with a source and
 verify all claims made by referencing that source [1]
 2. Make it easier for editors to give references, and readers to use them [2]
 others?  [3]

3. Enable commenting on sources, to discuss their reliability and
notability, in a shared place.  (Note the value of having a
multilingual discussion here: currently notions of notability and
reliability can change a great deal across language barriers)

4. Enable discussing splitting or merging sources, or providing
disambiguations when different people are confusingly using a single
citation to refer to more than one source.

 To figure out what the right problems are, I think it would help to look at
 the pain points -- and their solutions -- the hacks and proposals related to
 citations. Hacks include plugins and templates people have made to make
 MediaWiki more citation-friendly. Proposals include the ones on strategy wiki.

 Some of the hacks and proposals are listed here:
 http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Proposals_related_to_citations
 Could you add other hacks, proposals, and conversations...?

Thanks for that link.

Sam.


 [1] This can be done using backlinks.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Greenwood%26Earnshaw  )
 [2] I think of this as actionable references -- we'd have to explain
 exactly what the desirable qualities are. Adding to bilbiographic managers
 in one click is one of mine. :)
 [3] Other side-effects might be helping to identify what's highly cited in
 Wikipedia (which would be interesting -- and might help prioritize
 Wikisource additions), automatically adding quotes to Wikiquote, ...


-- 
Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Foundation-l] WikiCite - new WMF project? Was: UPEI's proposal for a universal citation index

2010-07-21 Thread Daniel Mietchen 
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 9:26 PM, Brian J Mingus
brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
 I like your suggestion that the abc disambiguator be chosen based on the
 first date of publication, and I also like the prospect of using slashes
 since they can't be contained in names. Using the full year is a good idea
 too. We can combine these to come up with a key that, in principle, is
 guaranteed to be unique. This key would contain:

 1) The first three author names separated by slashes
why not separate by pluses? they don't form part of names either, and
don't cause problems with wiki page titles.

 2) If there are more than three authors, an EtAl
don't think that's necessary if we get the abc part right.

 3) Some or all of the date. For instance, if there is only one source by
 this set of authors that year, we can just use . However, once another
 source by those set of authors is added, the key should change to MMDD
 or similar.
I don't think it is a good idea to change one key as a function of
updates on another, except for a generic disambiguation tag.

 If there are multiple publications on the same day, we can
 resort to abc. Redirects and disambiguation pages can be set up when a key
 changes.
As Jodi pointed out already, the exact date is often not clearly
identifiable, so I would go simply for the year.
Instead of an alphabetic abc, one could use some function of the
article title (e.g. the first three words thereof, or the initials of
the first three words), always in lower case.

An even less ambiguous abc would be starting page (for printed stuff)
or article number (for online only) but this brings us back to the
7523225 problem you mentioned above.

 Since the slashes are somewhat cumbersome, perhaps we can not make them
 mandatory, but similarly use them only when they are necessary in order to
 escape a name. In the case that one of the authors does not have a slash
 in their name - the dominant case - we can stick to the easily legible and
 niecly compact CamelCase format.

 Example keys generated by this algorithm:

 KangHsuKrajbichEtAl2009
Kang+Hsu+Krajbich+2009+the+wick+in
or
Kang+Hsu+Krajbich+2009+twi

also note that the CamelCase key does not yield results in a google
search, whereas the first plused variant brings up the right work
correctly, while the plused one with initialed title tends to bring at
least something written by or cited from these authors.

 Author1Author2/Author-Three/2009
Author1+Author2+Author-Three+2009+just+another+article
or
Author1+Author2+Author-Three+2009+jat

Of course, it does not have to be _exactly_ three authors, nor three
words from the title, and it does not solve the John Smith (or Zheng
Wang) problem.

Daniel

-- 
http://www.google.com/profiles/daniel.mietchen

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Foundation-l] WikiCite - new WMF project? Was: UPEI's proposal for a universal citation index

2010-07-21 Thread Daniel Kinzler 
 1) The first three author names separated by slashes
 why not separate by pluses? they don't form part of names either, and
 don't cause problems with wiki page titles.

I like this... however, how would you represent this in a URL? Also note that
using plusses in page names don't work with all server configurations, since
plus has a special meaning in URLs.

 3) Some or all of the date. For instance, if there is only one source by
 this set of authors that year, we can just use . However, once another
 source by those set of authors is added, the key should change to MMDD
 or similar.
 I don't think it is a good idea to change one key as a function of
 updates on another, except for a generic disambiguation tag.

I agree. And if you *have* to use the full date, use MMDD, not the other way
around, please.

 Since the slashes are somewhat cumbersome, perhaps we can not make them
 mandatory, but similarly use them only when they are necessary in order to
 escape a name. In the case that one of the authors does not have a slash
 in their name - the dominant case - we can stick to the easily legible and
 niecly compact CamelCase format.

 Example keys generated by this algorithm:

 KangHsuKrajbichEtAl2009
 Kang+Hsu+Krajbich+2009+the+wick+in
 or
 Kang+Hsu+Krajbich+2009+twi

Both seem good, though i would suggest to form a convention to ignore any
leading the and a, to a more distinctive 3 word suffix.

 Of course, it does not have to be _exactly_ three authors, nor three
 words from the title, and it does not solve the John Smith (or Zheng
 Wang) problem.

It also doesn't solve issues with transliteration: Merik Möller may become
Moeller or Moller, Jakob Voß may become Voss or Vosz  or even VoB,
etc. In case of chinese names, it's often not easy to decide which part is the
last name.

To avoid this kind of ambiguity, i suggest to automatically apply some type of
normalization and/or hashing. There is quite a bit of research about this kind
of normalisation out there, generally with the aim of detecting duplicates.
Perhaps we can learn from bibsonomy.org, have a look how they do it:
http://www.bibsonomy.org/help/doc/inside.html.

Gotta love open source university research projects :)

-- daniel



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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Foundation-l] WikiCite - new WMF project? Was: UPEI's proposal for a universal citation index

2010-07-21 Thread Daniel Mietchen 
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Daniel Kinzler dan...@brightbyte.de wrote:
 1) The first three author names separated by slashes
 why not separate by pluses? they don't form part of names either, and
 don't cause problems with wiki page titles.

 I like this... however, how would you represent this in a URL?
%2B would seem to be the obvious choice to me.

 Also note that
 using plusses in page names don't work with all server configurations, since
 plus has a special meaning in URLs.

Don't know too much about the double escaping business to comment on that, but
if pluses are not acceptable, we still have equal signs (possibly with
similar problems, but
still useful for direct web search) and underscores (which would turn
the whole key into one
string for search engines).

Daniel

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Foundation-l] WikiCite - new WMF project? Was: UPEI's proposal for a universal citation index

2010-07-21 Thread Brian J Mingus 
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 2:42 AM, Daniel Kinzler dan...@brightbyte.dewrote:

  1) The first three author names separated by slashes
  why not separate by pluses? they don't form part of names either, and
  don't cause problems with wiki page titles.

 I like this... however, how would you represent this in a URL? Also note
 that
 using plusses in page names don't work with all server configurations,
 since
 plus has a special meaning in URLs.

  3) Some or all of the date. For instance, if there is only one source by
  this set of authors that year, we can just use . However, once
 another
  source by those set of authors is added, the key should change to
 MMDD
  or similar.
  I don't think it is a good idea to change one key as a function of
  updates on another, except for a generic disambiguation tag.

 I agree. And if you *have* to use the full date, use MMDD, not the
 other way
 around, please.

  Since the slashes are somewhat cumbersome, perhaps we can not make them
  mandatory, but similarly use them only when they are necessary in order
 to
  escape a name. In the case that one of the authors does not have a
 slash
  in their name - the dominant case - we can stick to the easily legible
 and
  niecly compact CamelCase format.
 
  Example keys generated by this algorithm:
 
  KangHsuKrajbichEtAl2009
  Kang+Hsu+Krajbich+2009+the+wick+in
  or
  Kang+Hsu+Krajbich+2009+twi

 Both seem good, though i would suggest to form a convention to ignore any
 leading the and a, to a more distinctive 3 word suffix.

  Of course, it does not have to be _exactly_ three authors, nor three
  words from the title, and it does not solve the John Smith (or Zheng
  Wang) problem.

 It also doesn't solve issues with transliteration: Merik Möller may become
 Moeller or Moller, Jakob Voß may become Voss or Vosz  or even
 VoB,
 etc. In case of chinese names, it's often not easy to decide which part is
 the
 last name.

 To avoid this kind of ambiguity, i suggest to automatically apply some type
 of
 normalization and/or hashing. There is quite a bit of research about this
 kind
 of normalisation out there, generally with the aim of detecting duplicates.
 Perhaps we can learn from bibsonomy.org, have a look how they do it:
 http://www.bibsonomy.org/help/doc/inside.html.

 Gotta love open source university research projects :)

 -- daniel


Hey Daniel,

Bibsonomy seems to suffer from the same problem as CiteULike - urls which
convey no meaning. An example url id from CiteULike is 2434335, and one from
Bibsonomy is 29be860f0bdea4a29fba38ef9e6dd6a09. I hope to continue to steer
the conversation away from that direction. These IDs guarantee uniqueness,
but I believe that we can create keys that both guarantee uniqueness and
convey some meaning to humans. Consider that this key will be embedded in
wiki articles any time a source is cited. It's important that it make some
sense.

Plus signs and slashes in the key appear to be cumbersome. Perhaps we can
avoid this by truncating last names that involve a slash to either the
portion before or after the slash.

Changing the key seems to be a bad idea, so we want a key system that is
unique from the start. That means we should use the full date, MMDD as
suggested by Daniel.

In the event that multiple sources are published by the same set of authors
on the same day, we can use a, b, c disambiguation.

This gives us the following key, guaranteed to be unique:
KangHsuKrajbich20091011b

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Foundation-l] WikiCite - new WMF project? Was: UPEI's proposal for a universal citation index

2010-07-21 Thread David Goodman 
The model for this is WP:Book sources, though this relies upon the
user selecting the appropriate places to look, rather than guiding
him.

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Jodi Schneider jodi.schnei...@deri.org wrote:

 On 21 Jul 2010, at 19:47, Brian J Mingus wrote:

  Finn,
 I'm not a fan of including a portion of the the title for a couple of
 reasons. First, it's not required to make the key unique. Second, it makes
 the key longer than necessary. Third, the first word or words from a title
 are not guaranteed to convey any meaning.
 Regarding a Reference: namespace, I can see how this has some utility and
 why projects have moved to it. However, I consider it a stopgap solution
 that projects have implemented when what they really want is a proper wiki
 for citations. Here are a few quick things that you can't do (or would have
 to go out of your way to do) with just a Reference namespace that you can do
 with a wiki dedicated to all the world's citations:
 - Custom reports that are boolean combinations of citation fields, ala SMW.
 This requires substantive new technology as SMW doesn't scale.
 - User bibliographies which are a logical subset of all literature ever
 published.

 Not sure why a Reference namespace couldn't do this.

 - Conduct a search of the literature.

 Or this  (you can search just one namespace)

 - A new set of policies that are not necessarily NPOV, regarding the
 creation of articles that discuss collections of literature (lit review-like
 concept). The content of these policies will emerge over years with the help
 of a community. These articles could, for instance, help people who are
 navigating a new area of a literature avoid getting stuck in local minima.
 It could point out the true global context to them. It could point out
 experimenter biases in the literature; for example, a recent article was
 published where it was found that citation networks in academic literature
 can have a tendency to form based on the assumption of authority, when in
 fact that authority is false, bringing a whole thread of publications into
 doubt.

 I'm not sure that literature reviews belong in the same wiki as citations.
 That's definitely a different namespace. :)

 - Create wiki articles about individual sources.

 This might or might not be the same wiki -- but that could be interesting.
 I could imagine a page for a journal being pulled in from several sources:
 the collection of citations in the wiki for that journal, RSS from the
 current contents (license permitting), a Wikipedia page about the journal
 (if it exists), a link to author guidelines/submission info, open access
 info from SHERPA/ROMEO,  In this vision, very little of the content
 lives in this wiki itself. Rather, it's templated from numerous other
 places Perhaps in the way buy this book links are handled in
 librarything -- there are numerous external links which can be activated
 with a checkbox, and some external content that is pulled in based on
 copyright review.

 While I am not dedicated to any of these things happening, I also do not
 wish to rule them out. The hope is that a new community will emerge around
 the project and guide it in the direction that is most useful. My hope in
 this thread is that we can identify some of the most likely cases and
 imagine what it will be like, so that we can convey this vision to the
 Foundation and they can get a sense of the potential importance of the
 project.

 Scoping is a big problem, I think -- because it would help to have a vision
 of which of several related tasks/endpoints is primary.
 I think an investigation of what fr.wikipedia is doing would be really
 useful -- does anybody edit there, or have an interest in digging into that?
 Questions might include: What is the reference namespace doing? What isn't
 it doing, that they wish it would? Did they consider alternatives to a
 namespace? How is maintenance going? Do they see the reference namespace as
 longstanding into the future, or as a stopgap?
 -Jodi
 ___
 Wiki-research-l mailing list
 Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l





-- 
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Foundation-l] WikiCite - new WMF project? Was: UPEI's proposal for a universal citation index

2010-07-21 Thread David Goodman 
Sure, but first, is this capable of being done at all?  I have never
seen a method of bibliographic control that can cope with the complete
range of publications, even just print publications. Perhaps we need
to proceed  within narrow domains.

Second, is this capable of being done by crowd-sourcing, or does it
require enforceable standards? The work of Open Library is not a
promising model, being a uncontrolled mix, done to many different
standards.  Actually, within the domain of scientific journal articles
from the last 10 years in Western languages, the best current method
seems to be a mechanical algorithm, the one used by Google Scholar.
True,  it does not aggregate perfectly--but it does aggregate better
than any other existing database. And it does not get them all--nor
could it no matter how much improved, for many of the versions that
are actually available are off limits to its crawlers.

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 7:02 PM, Brian J Mingus
brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:


 On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Jodi Schneider jodi.schnei...@deri.org
 wrote:

 On 21 Jul 2010, at 19:47, Brian J Mingus wrote:

  Finn,
 I'm not a fan of including a portion of the the title for a couple of
 reasons. First, it's not required to make the key unique. Second, it makes
 the key longer than necessary. Third, the first word or words from a title
 are not guaranteed to convey any meaning.
 Regarding a Reference: namespace, I can see how this has some utility and
 why projects have moved to it. However, I consider it a stopgap solution
 that projects have implemented when what they really want is a proper wiki
 for citations. Here are a few quick things that you can't do (or would have
 to go out of your way to do) with just a Reference namespace that you can do
 with a wiki dedicated to all the world's citations:
 - Custom reports that are boolean combinations of citation fields, ala
 SMW. This requires substantive new technology as SMW doesn't scale.
 - User bibliographies which are a logical subset of all literature ever
 published.

 Not sure why a Reference namespace couldn't do this.

 - Conduct a search of the literature.

 Or this  (you can search just one namespace)

 - A new set of policies that are not necessarily NPOV, regarding the
 creation of articles that discuss collections of literature (lit review-like
 concept). The content of these policies will emerge over years with the help
 of a community. These articles could, for instance, help people who are
 navigating a new area of a literature avoid getting stuck in local minima.
 It could point out the true global context to them. It could point out
 experimenter biases in the literature; for example, a recent article was
 published where it was found that citation networks in academic literature
 can have a tendency to form based on the assumption of authority, when in
 fact that authority is false, bringing a whole thread of publications into
 doubt.

 I'm not sure that literature reviews belong in the same wiki as citations.
 That's definitely a different namespace. :)

 - Create wiki articles about individual sources.

 This might or might not be the same wiki -- but that could be interesting.
 I could imagine a page for a journal being pulled in from several sources:
 the collection of citations in the wiki for that journal, RSS from the
 current contents (license permitting), a Wikipedia page about the journal
 (if it exists), a link to author guidelines/submission info, open access
 info from SHERPA/ROMEO,  In this vision, very little of the content
 lives in this wiki itself. Rather, it's templated from numerous other
 places Perhaps in the way buy this book links are handled in
 librarything -- there are numerous external links which can be activated
 with a checkbox, and some external content that is pulled in based on
 copyright review.

 While I am not dedicated to any of these things happening, I also do not
 wish to rule them out. The hope is that a new community will emerge around
 the project and guide it in the direction that is most useful. My hope in
 this thread is that we can identify some of the most likely cases and
 imagine what it will be like, so that we can convey this vision to the
 Foundation and they can get a sense of the potential importance of the
 project.

 Scoping is a big problem, I think -- because it would help to have a
 vision of which of several related tasks/endpoints is primary.
 I think an investigation of what fr.wikipedia is doing would be really
 useful -- does anybody edit there, or have an interest in digging into that?
 Questions might include: What is the reference namespace doing? What isn't
 it doing, that they wish it would? Did they consider alternatives to a
 namespace? How is maintenance going? Do they see the reference namespace as
 longstanding into the future, or as a stopgap?
 -Jodi

 More broadly speaking, a reference namespace does not accomplish the goal of
 having a free

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Foundation-l] WikiCite - new WMF project? Was: UPEI's proposal for a universal citation index

2010-07-21 Thread Brian J Mingus 
 On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 5:47 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Sure, but first, is this capable of being done at all?  I have never
 seen a method of bibliographic control that can cope with the complete
 range of publications, even just print publications. Perhaps we need
 to proceed  within narrow domains.


I assume that by range you mean the number of publications in a domain, and
that by domain you mean the type of publication, be it a book, webpage or
map.

The generic nature of a markup such as wiki template syntax allows us to
easily adapt the same application to new domains. The challenge of the range
within a domain is largely one of resolving ambiguities, which can be
settled with policies that carefully adjudicate troublesome cases.


 Second, is this capable of being done by crowd-sourcing, or does it
 require enforceable standards? The work of Open Library is not a
 promising model, being a uncontrolled mix, done to many different
 standards.  Actually, within the domain of scientific journal articles
 from the last 10 years in Western languages, the best current method
 seems to be a mechanical algorithm, the one used by Google Scholar.
 True,  it does not aggregate perfectly--but it does aggregate better
 than any other existing database. And it does not get them all--nor
 could it no matter how much improved, for many of the versions that
 are actually available are off limits to its crawlers.


In my conception the enforceable standards are to emerge in the meta pages
of this project based on the actual issues that the community encounters.

Googlebot has many deep web accounts to journals online. When you search
Google Scholar the relevance algorithm is actually comparing your query to
the content of pdf pages which you do not have permission to access. Of
course, Google can't access them all, but many publishers have found it in
their interest to give them a complimentary account since it drives
subscription rates.

We can rely on individuals, particularly academics, who have access to the
deep web to help us curate the bibliography. And we can rely on the massive
number of personal bibliographies already out there to help us get good
coverage.

Cleaning up the mass of bibliographic content that I anticipate would be
uploaded by users would require the writing of bots in coordination with the
creation of policy pages.

Getting rid of copyright material would be handled in the same manner, I
presume. After major content publishers see what we are doing, I am sure
they will let us know their opinion about what we can and cannot do. It
seems likely that they will overreach their bounds, and as I have seen on
Wikipedia, the community members will happily ignore them. Or, if they think
the requests are actually in compliance with the law, they will comply.

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Foundation-l] WikiCite - new WMF project? Was: UPEI's proposal for a universal citation index

2010-07-20 Thread Brian J Mingus 
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 8:08 PM, Rob Lanphier ro...@robla.net wrote:

 On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Brian J Mingus
 brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
  I have been working with Sam and others for some time now on
 brainstorming a
  proposal for the Foundation to create a centralized wiki of citations, a
  WikiCite so to speak, if that is not the eventual name. My plan is to
  continue to discuss with folks who are knowledgeable and interested in
 such
  a project and to have the feedback I receive go into the proposal which I
  hope to write this summer.

 This sounds great.  Just speaking as a community member, I've been
 thinking about this topic a long time myself, and have plenty to add
 to the conversation.

  The proposal white paper will then be sent around
  to interested parties for corrections and feedback, including on-wiki and
  mailing lists, before eventually landing at the Foundation officially. As
 we
  know WMF has not started a new project in some years, so there is no
  official process. Thus I find it important to get it right.

 I'd suggest finding an on-wiki spot to discuss this work.  Here's one
 place this has been discussed in the past that may be a good place to
 revive the conversation:

 http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Building_a_database_of_all_books_ever_published

 Rather than commenting on list about the subject itself, I've
 commented on the discussion page there:

 http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal_talk:Building_a_database_of_all_books_ever_published#Fact_database_6531

 Rob


Rob,

Thanks for bringing my attention to this proposal. It certainly has some of
the same ring as this project, with of course some important differences.
Commonalities between the projects are that they are multilingual and
require a powerful search engine. Differences are that this project is for
all literary sources and that I believe it is best suited at the WMF. The
widespread use of citations across the Wikipedias will drive user
contributions towards adding richer metadata to those citations. And having
a source of citations available will increase the quality of the Wikipedias
as it becomes easier and easier to cite sources.

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Foundation-l] WikiCite - new WMF project? Was: UPEI's proposal for a universal citation index

2010-07-20 Thread Brian J Mingus 
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 9:37 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:

 Brian,

 The meta process for new project proposals is still the cleanest one
 for suggesting a specific Project and presenting it alongside similar
 projects.

 It would be helpful if you could update a related project proposal on
 meta -- say, [[m:WikiBibliography]], if that seems relevant.  (I just
 cleaned that page up and merged in an older proposal that had been
 obfuscated.)


Thanks for your work on this - definitely in the right direction! I will
consider whether I feel it's the right way for me to get started. One point
is that I am pointing more in the direction of a long-form proposal, and I
have more experience writing white-paper proposals for academia. I certainly
want it to end up on wiki, but when TPTB finally read the proposal perhaps
they will find it more persuasive if it is a professional looking document
that lands in their inbox.


 Or you can create a new project proposal...  WikiCite as a name can be
 confusing, since it has been used to refer to this bibliographic idea,
 but also to refer to the idea of citations for every statement or fact
 - something closer to a blame or trust solution that includes
 citations in its transactions.


Another name that I have come up with is OpenScholar. I still rather like
it, but suspect it has too much of a scientific ring to it? Names are
certainly very important so we should do more work on this avenue. Including
a list of names in the proposal would be a good idea, and perhaps the final
name will be a combination of existing name proposals.


 We should figure out how this project would work with acawiki, and
 possibly bibdex.  Bibdex doesn't aim to   And it would be helpful to
 have a publicly-viewable demo to play with -- could you clone your
 current wiki and populate the result with dummy data?


The problem with WikiPapers is that it has too many features! A feature-thin
version would be ideal for the proposal though, so I will plan to have some
kind of a demo site available.


 I love the idea of having a global place to discuss citations -- ALL
 citations -- something that OpenLibrary, the arXiv, and anyone else
 hosting cited documents could point to for every one of its works.


Exactly :)

Brian


 Sam.


 On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
 nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
  Brian J Mingus, 19/07/2010 22:20:
  The basic idea is a centralized wiki that contains citation information
 that
  other MediaWikis and WMF projects can then reference using something
 like a
  {{cite}} template or a simple link. The community can document the
 citation,
  the author, the book etc.. and, in one idealization, all citations
 across
  all wikis would point to the same article on WikiCite. Users can use
 this
  wiki as their personal bibliography as well, as collections of citations
 can
  be exported in arbitrary citation formats.
 
  I have already mentioned it before, but this description looks quite
  similar to http://bibdex.org/ . Maybe we should join forces (i.e., send
  your proposal also to Sunir Shah).
 
  Nemo
 
  ___
  Wiki-research-l mailing list
  Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
 



 --
 Samuel Klein  identi.ca:sj   w:user:sj

 ___
 foundation-l mailing list
 foundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-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] [Foundation-l] WikiCite - new WMF project? Was: UPEI's proposal for a universal citation index

2010-07-19 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo) 
Brian J Mingus, 19/07/2010 22:20:
 The basic idea is a centralized wiki that contains citation information that
 other MediaWikis and WMF projects can then reference using something like a
 {{cite}} template or a simple link. The community can document the citation,
 the author, the book etc.. and, in one idealization, all citations across
 all wikis would point to the same article on WikiCite. Users can use this
 wiki as their personal bibliography as well, as collections of citations can
 be exported in arbitrary citation formats.

I have already mentioned it before, but this description looks quite 
similar to http://bibdex.org/ . Maybe we should join forces (i.e., send 
your proposal also to Sunir Shah).

Nemo

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Foundation-l] WikiCite - new WMF project? Was: UPEI's proposal for a universal citation index

2010-07-19 Thread Sunir Shah 
Hey folks,

I've been lurking on this list since the beginning of time and saw
this fly by. Thanks Nemo for the shout out. That is pretty much what
Bibdex is about. My inspiration was a Big Hairy Goal  to provide a
central place where the body of academic knowledge can be curated by
the public in a wiki style. It's different than Wikipedia because
there is no NPOV and often research needs to be secret.

I originally tried this with both MeatballWiki and a similar service
called BibWiki. Bibdex is my latest adaptation based on what I learnt.
The current iteration embraces the face that  academia is built on
controversy. Different groups need to have space to express different
opinions apart from others. So, I rebuilt the software so that
research groups can create their own public annotated bibliographies
and control who has access to write to those bibliographies, much like
Google Groups has different levels of public and private access
control.

My understanding is that WikiCite is focused specifically on the needs
of the WMF projects. That has its own set of interesting use cases.

By the way, the http://www.openlibrary.org project is very inspiring
and in a similar vein, albeit restricted to books.

Cheers,
Sunir, Bibdex

On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
 Brian J Mingus, 19/07/2010 22:20:
 The basic idea is a centralized wiki that contains citation information that
 other MediaWikis and WMF projects can then reference using something like a
 {{cite}} template or a simple link. The community can document the citation,
 the author, the book etc.. and, in one idealization, all citations across
 all wikis would point to the same article on WikiCite. Users can use this
 wiki as their personal bibliography as well, as collections of citations can
 be exported in arbitrary citation formats.

 I have already mentioned it before, but this description looks quite
 similar to http://bibdex.org/ . Maybe we should join forces (i.e., send
 your proposal also to Sunir Shah).

 Nemo

 ___
 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