lf” means “me” …
So people talking about “self-management” often end up implicitly saying “But
the real problem is that I don’t get to be in control of X ….” (which is a fine
thing to discuss, but why complicate it with fancy term that hides the real
point…).
—
Br
uable beyond the
Wikipedia community).
Brian B.
—
Brian S. Butler, Ph.D.
Professor and Interim Dean, UMD iSchool
University of Maryland
College Park, MD USA
—
From: Wiki-research-l
mailto:wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org&
the
number of alternatives higher).
Brian Butler
UMD, iSchool
On Jan 6, 2015, at 4:20 PM, Jonathan Morgan wrote:
This from Ars[1]. Sound familiar?
* "The top 10 percent of contributors end up supplying an average of about
80 percent of the total effort put into these projects."
*
ch-institute-derp-142950548.html
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
--
Brian C. Keegan, Ph.D.
Post-Doctoral Research Fe
Equally important are "standards" (wrong term really) for dataset descriptions
so they can be shared in HUMAN readable/comprehensible ways.
This is often the bigger problem, resulting in publishing and sharing efforts
that don't really work.
On Sep 4, 2014, at 12:05 AM, Kerry Raymond wrote:
identify
(semi-)automated revisions?
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
wrote:
> Brian Keegan, 18/05/2014 18:10:
>
> Is there a way to retrieve a canonical list of bots on enwiki or
>> elsewhere?
>>
>
> A Bots.csv list exists. https://meta.
How does one cite emails in ACM proceedings format? :)
On Sunday, May 18, 2014, R.Stuart Geiger wrote:
> Tsk tsk tsk, Brian. When the revolution comes, bot discriminators will get
> no mercy. :-)
>
> But seriously, my tl;dr: instead of asking if an account is or isn't a
>
my data without having
to resort to manual cleaning or hacky regex?
--
Brian C. Keegan, Ph.D.
Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, Lazer Lab
College of Social Sciences and Humanities, Northeastern University
Fellow, Institute for Quantitative Social Sciences, Harvard University
Affiliate, Berkman Cent
who thinks that we could
> apply a "contagion" algorithm, to see which edits are "contagious". (I met
> this econopyhicist at the Berkeley Data Science Faire at which Wikimedia
> Analytics presented, so it was worth it in the end).
>
> Maximilian Klein
> Wikiped
ture, history, arts) using social media
CONFERENCE WEBSITE
http://icwsm.org/2014/
General Co-Chairs
Eytan Adar, University of Michigan
Paul Resnick, University of Michigan
PROGRAM Co-Chairs
Munmun De Choudhury, Microsoft Research
Bernie Hogan, Oxford Internet Institute
Alice Oh, KAIST
--
Bri
University of Maryland, College Park
College of Information Studies: Maryland's iSchool
Assistant Professor
The iSchool at the University of Maryland seeks creative and forward-thinking
individuals for a tenure-track faculty position in a multicultural and
interdisciplinary environment where res
We look at some of these issues in:
Joyce, E., Pike, J. C., & Butler, B. S. (2013). Rules and Roles vs. Consensus
Self-Governed Deliberative Mass Collaboration Bureaucracies. American
Behavioral Scientist, 57(5), 576-594.
Joyce, E., Butler, B., & Pike, J. (2011, February). Handling flammable
m
send the appropriate
materials to the Summer Institute co-coordinator (Brian Butler) at
bsbut...@umd.edu by April 5th, 2013:
* Doctoral students, post doctoral students, pre-tenure faculty, and early
career researchers should send their CV and a short (~ 1 page) response to:
“How does/will your
quot;big"
approaches? I remain convinced that organizing wiki-scholars to edit
special issues, perhaps even incorporating wiki-like processes into the
review processes themselves to the extent editorial boards are open to it,
will be far more fruitful use of scarce academic time and interest.
I keep coming back to this same question Aaron's raised as well. Wiki is
obviously the glue holding everything thematically as well as logistically
together in the proposals I've seen here-to-for, but it seems
nigh-impossible to assemble an editorial board that is simultaneously open
and qualified
Have you all considered whether the costs of bootstrapping up a set of
editors and authors, playing the impact factor game, and articulating a
mission that is broad enough to include computer scientists and historians
warrant the benefits of having yet another outlet to publish wiki research?
The b
> Jeremy Foote
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
--
Brian C. Keegan
Ph.D. Student - Media, Technol
Joe Reagle's "Good Faith Collaboration" is an excellent alternative.
On Sep 5, 2012 4:37 AM, "Hrafn H Malmquist" wrote:
> Good day everyone
>
> My name is Hrafn Malmquist, I am an Icelandic student of library and
> information science at the University of Iceland, writing a master's thesis
> on t
sible validity is immensely difficult to design and
execute, so I avoid it at all costs, but that's my methodological bias :)
I'm very happy to have people poke holes in my ideas now so that I can have
snappier responses in front of conference audiences and dissertation
committees!
Best,
My preliminary analysis of (English) Wikipedia's response to the 2012
Aurora shootings. Data is available at the bottom:
http://www.brianckeegan.com/2012/07/2012-aurora-shootings/
--
Brian C. Keegan
Ph.D. Student - Media, Technology, & Society
School of Communication, Northwestern U
and collaborative management styles)
(apologies for cross-postings!)
--
Brian C. Keegan
Ph.D. Student - Media, Technology, & Society
School of Communication, Northwestern University
Science of Networks in Communities, Laboratory for Collaborative Technology
__
JSTOR. Bring in historians covering
> main historiographical themes. I think this could help hundreds of editors
> find new topics, methods and sources that would lead to hundreds of
> thousands of better edits.
>
> Richard Jensen
>
>
>
> __**__
"Anyone can try to publish a junk X single-handed and give it away free;
almost nobody does so. The software is there but the necessary expertise is
very expensive and takes decades to develop."
Similar words were also uttered by newspaper editors, encyclopedia
publishers, proprietary software dev
For most of the faculty I know (a decent number, across a wide variety of
disciplines) there is no 'problem' with Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is a tertiary source (i.e. it's not data or an archival document
(primary) and it's not a report of research (secondary)…).
Student's in academically rigorous pr
AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
> On Thu, 3 May 2012 20:51:27 -0400, Brian Butler wrote:
>> Yes -- Wikipedia is an exercise in knowledge mobilization, not
>> knowledge creation.
>>
>> While there are some exceptions, most scholars are seeking to create
>> knowledge
Yes -- Wikipedia is an exercise in knowledge mobilization, not knowledge
creation.
While there are some exceptions, most scholars are seeking to create knowledge
(and academic literature is part of that process -- hence rarely is it useful
for knowledge mobilization).
We don't expect a physici
the Chair with any questions.
--
Brian C. Keegan
Ph.D. Student - Media, Technology, & Society
School of Communication, Northwestern University
Science of Networks in Communities, Laboratory for Collaborative Technology
___
Wiki-research-l mailin
, and participant observations
done, written up, and submitted to what is sure to be another great WikiSym
conference!
Details about the CFP are here:
http://www.wikisym.org/ws2012/bin/view/Main/Authors
Cheers!
Brian
WikiSym Publicity Co-Chair
--
Brian C. Keegan
Ph.D. Student - Media
-service
--
Brian C. Keegan
Ph.D. Student - Media, Technology, & Society
School of Communication, Northwestern University
Science of Networks in Communities, Laboratory for Collaborative Technology
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-resear
ween
these sources so that we understand the true context. These really are two
sides of the same problem, and the project proposal aims to cover both
sides.
Brian
ps: Once people top-post it makes it challenging to bottom post without
breaking thread continuity. Since I always top-post at work I
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Brian wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Jodi Schneider
> wrote:
>
>> While looking through strategy wiki I noticed this proposal:
>>
>> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Building_a_database_of_
ual proposal. And maybe it
doesn't matter where we write the proposal, as long as it's really good. To
that end we can consider Sam's recent contribution of
[[m:WikiBibliography]], which is along the correct lines.
Brian
___
Wiki-research
have to read,
> memorize and type in them. But if your workflow is truly digital then
> their limitation is just a burden. I would value uniqueness and
> stability much more then readability - and you cannot get both!
>
> Cheers
> Jakob
>
>
>
You continue to rest the basis
rather simple. The
community simply needs to create an order of precedence for properties, such
that the bibliographic field that has the highest precedence and is not
ambiguous goes into the key for that record. In almost all cases these
unambiguous fields will be the authors and the date.
Brian
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.wikimedi
wing rule: There is always
a way to adjudicate ambiguity. It is easy to create a rule that works in 90%
of cases:
Author1Author2Author3EtAl10
It is easy to modify this rule to work in 99% of cases:
Author1Author2Author3EtAl20101011b
Modifying the rule to work in 100% of cases requires a community of
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Jodi Schneider 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,
e 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 t
olicies 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
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Jodi Schneider wrote:
> Hi Brian,
>
> On 20 Jul 2010, at 18:02, Brian J Mingus wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Finn Aarup Nielsen wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Hi Brian and others,
>>
>> I also think that it woul
we
can mold it to our needs here. It has the core capabilities found in
Semantic MediaWiki, and it is fast and scalable.
I say this as a serious user of Semantic MediaWiki. I have seen that it
can't scale well without an alternate backend, and I wonder what kind of
monumental effort will b
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 9:37 PM, Samuel Klein 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 relate
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 8:08 PM, Rob Lanphier wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Brian J Mingus
> 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,
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Finn Aarup Nielsen wrote:
>
>
> Hi Brian and others,
>
> I also think that it would be interesting with some bibliographic support,
> for two-way citation tracking and commenting on articles (for example), but
> I furthermore find that
ly be like, once it is fully matured?
Brian Mingus
Graduate Student
Computational Cognitive Neuroscience Lab
University of Colorado at Boulder
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:22 AM, phoebe ayers wrote:
> There have been a number of proposals floated in the Wikimedia
> community over the years
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Finn Aarup Nielsen wrote:
>
>
> In regards to WikiTextrose, Wikicite, WikiPaper, AcaWiki, Wikicat:
>
> I have now written a small blog entry related to structured citations:
>
> Two-way citations in MediaWiki
> http://fnielsen.posterous.com/two-way-citations-in-m
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Jodi Schneider wrote:
> Hi Brian & all,
>
> This is the first I've heard of WikiPapers. If the software isn't released,
> is there someplace it's in use? In other words, how can I try it? (The
> closest I can find http:/
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 8:19 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
> Hello Brian,
>
> Brian Mingus writes:
>> I wouldn't go so far as to say nobody is working on these ideas. We
>> recently submitted a project proposal to the Foundation along the
>> lines of community docume
We continue to wait for Foundation feedback, but it has been
challenging to get more than sparse conversations. It doesn't seem as
though they have met to discuss the topic, which is unfortunate.
Brian Mingus
Graduate student
Computational Cognitive Neuroscience Lab
University of Colorado at
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 3:28 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> Brian J Mingus, 04/06/2010 16:17:
> > o Note that G articles are extremely hard to predict and
> > should be merged with another quality class.
>
> Or viceversa this is a useful class
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 8:16 AM, Brian wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Reid Priedhorsky wrote:
>
>> Brian J Mingus wrote:
>> > -- Forwarded message --
>> > From: Brian
>> > Date: Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 10:46 PM
>> >
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Reid Priedhorsky wrote:
> Brian J Mingus wrote:
> > -- Forwarded message --
> > From: Brian
> > Date: Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 10:46 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Quality and pageviews
> > To: Liam Wyatt
>
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Andrea Forte wrote:
> Hi all, anyone have a close estimate (or exact number) for the size of
> the 30 May 2010 enwiki dump once unzipped?
>
> >5TB is what it says here [
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_database#Latest_complete_dump_of_English_Wikipedia]
>
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Brian wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Liam Wyatt wrote:
>
>> Does anyone know of any research which demonstrates a correlation between
>> the quality of an article in Wikipedia and the number of pageviews it
>> receiv
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Liam Wyatt wrote:
> Does anyone know of any research which demonstrates a correlation between
> the quality of an article in Wikipedia and the number of pageviews it
> receives?
> I'm trying to argue, as part of my work with museums, that if they want to
> get peo
Wikipedia through quality and concept discovery. Technical Report.
http://grey.colorado.edu/mediawiki/sites/mingus/images/d/d3/RassbachPincockMingus07.pdf
Cheers,
Brian
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 7:48 PM, Adrianne Wadewitz wrote:
>
> I am looking at submitting a grant so that I can work
s the Automated Readability Index. See my website
for my research into quality. As far as I know I've done the most thorough
analyses of predictors of quality, although I haven't been keeping
completely up. The later paper is the more interesting in terms of
predictors.
http://grey.colorad
Potthast, Stein, Gerling. (2008). Automatic Vandalism Detection in
Wikipedia.
http://www.uni-weimar.de/medien/webis/publications/downloads/papers/stein_2008c.pdf
Abstract. We present results of a new approach to detect destructive article
revi-
sions, so-called vandalism, in Wikipedia. Vandalism d
rning
*you pit the vandals against themselves. *Every time they perform a
particular kind of vandalism, it can never be performed again because the
bot will recognize it.
Cheers,
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Brian wrote:
> By the way, I ask those questions having read the bots user pag
g out of it that benefits the project.
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Brion Vibber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brian wrote:
> > They begin accepting applications for mentoring organizations in two
> days.
> > Any word on this?
>
> We're still very short-handed,
s/right/write/. pre-morning coffee still :)
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 9:33 AM, Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've used BeautifulSoup to get plain text out of rendered HTML dumps. Its
> slow and doesn't work that well. What you really want to do it right is an
> a
I've used BeautifulSoup to get plain text out of rendered HTML dumps. Its
slow and doesn't work that well. What you really want to do it right is an
actual mediawiki parser to strip the syntax out for you.
Try this one: http://code.pediapress.com/wiki/wiki
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 7:57 AM, Kurt Lu
y New Years =)
Brian
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
It seems that what Ward and others are getting at is that it would be useful
to have precision and recall measures for Luca's trust metric. Of course,
the metric can't possibly know it when a brand new user contributes
unusually high quality text to the encyclopedia. Nonetheless, it seems that
a to
those articles to go through the process. It's certainly true that
there are some hidden nuggets.
On 8/30/07, Kat Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 8/29/07, Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I am thinking more along the lines of the loss of quality of prev
I am thinking more along the lines of the loss of quality of previously high
quality articles, which are already incredibly small in proportion, such as
"featured articles." Traditional content production methods asymptote in
quality, but the editing process in place at Wikipedia (which is only one
I think the first part of your claim needs to be substantiated first! Almost
all of the content on the English Wikipedia, for example, is of low quality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index
On 8/29/07, Desilets, Alain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I need a go
http://www.msu.edu/~john2429/Wikipedia%20as%20Collective%20Action.pdf
On 8/19/07, Constantinescu Nicolaie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Your link is broken, please post a valid one.
>
> Thanks for sharing.
>
> On 8/17/07, Benjamin Keith Johnson < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
>
is info is needed
interactively. Also when there are more tools that provide a great job, we
will get a situation where advances in one tool will egg on the people of
another tool to do even better.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 7/2/07, Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Pywikipediab
Pywikipediabot provides this functionality under a free license.
/Brian
On 7/2/07, Jimmy Wales <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why don't you release this under a free license so that the Wikimedia
Foundation could use it?
On Jul 2, 2007, at 8:33 AM, Torsten Zesch wrote:
>
>
that this paper is a draft. Please do not cite it.
"Exploring the Feasibility of Automatically Rating Online Article Quality"
http://whisper.colorado.edu/RassbachPincockMingus07.pdf
/Brian Mingus
en:User:Alterego <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alterego>
_
71 matches
Mail list logo
