Hi Chitu, On 14 Mar 2011, at 18:25, Chitu Okoli wrote:
> Hi everyone, > > We sent a separate e-mail introducing our systematic literature review on > Wikipedia-related peer-reviewed academic studies published in English. As we > mentioned, we have identified over 2,100 peer-reviewed studies. This number > of studies is far too large for conducting a review synthesis, and so we have > decided to focus only on peer-reviewed journal publications and doctoral > theses; we identified 638 such studies. > > That leaves us with around 1,500 peer-reviewed conference articles, which we > gathered from the ACM Digital Library (http://portal.acm.org) and IEEE > Engineering Village (http://www.engineeringvillage.com). We have posted the > full list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Moudy83/conference_papers. > Unfortunately, the only criteria we have applied on selecting these articles > is that "Wikipedia", "wikipedian" or "wikipedians" appears in the title, > abstract or keywords. Thus, there are very likely some papers there that are > only marginally related to Wikipedia. For the journal articles and doctoral > theses we discuss in the other thread, we have verified each one to make sure > that they are really substantially about Wikipedia; however, we haven't done > this for these conference articles. We estimate that 5 to 20% of the articles > may not actually be relevant. > > Our question here is, what do we do with these conference articles? There is > already a list of conference papers at > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_studies_of_Wikipedia#Conference_presentations_and_papers > (WP:ACST), which currently lists around 230 conference articles. Here are > some thoughts of what we could do: > > * Merge the two lists. This would take too much time and effort, and since > we're not going to actually review the conference articles, for us it's just > not worth it. Of course, if someone else would like to do that, that would be > great. The problem is that it's not a bit-by-bit job; since it involves > merging tables, it seems to be an all-or-nothing operation. What reference management software are you using? Perhaps there's a way to do this besides merging tables, or only merging 1 table with what you have... -Jodi > > * Add our list to the end of the WP:ACST list. This would leave lots of > duplicates (probably between 100 and 200). > > * Replace the WP:ACST list with our more complete list. This would lose the > extra information in many of the current WP:ACST article listings. > > Another significant problem is that adding these 1,500 conference articles > would greatly lengthen an already extremely long page. Should the WP:ACST be > subdivided into multiple pages? > > What do think? We're really not sure the best way to put this useful > information out, while retaining the value of what's already there. > > Thanks for your help. > > Chitu Okoli, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada > (http://chitu.okoli.org/professional/open-content/wikipedia-and-open-content.html) > Arto Lanamäki, University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway > Mohamad Mehdi, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada > Mostafa Mesgari, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada > > _______________________________________________ > 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
