James and Travis, you bring up a point that we have struggled back and forth
with for several months. We really, really would like to include conference
articles, but we just can't see how we could handle many more articles than
what we've got now. We've been working on and off on this project for over two
years now. (You can find works in progress at the link at the bottom to my
website.) We'd like to get it done eventually, and we can only handle so many
articles.
We considered including top-tier conferences, but the question is, what is a "top
conference"? In trying to answer this, we looked at a couple of sources:
* Top Tier and 2nd tier conferences from
http://webdocs.cs.ualberta.ca/~zaiane/htmldocs/ConfRanking.html
* A-ranked conferences in Information and Computing Sciences from
http://lamp.infosys.deakin.edu.au/era/?page=cforsel10
* We also considered including all WikiSym articles on Wikipedia
We identified which of the 1,500 conference papers from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Moudy83/conference_papers were "top
conferences" by those definitions, and we found over 400. On top of our 600 journal
articles and doctoral theses, we think 1,000 papers is just too much for us to handle.
If we could somehow narrow it down to 100 relevant conference papers, we could add that
in, but no more. However, how do we select which conferences are "must
includes" while unfortunately leaving out the rest? We just don't know how to do
this in a non-arbitrary, objective manner that would truly identify the top 100
conference papers on Wikipedia that contribute to scholarly knowledge.
Any ideas on how to do this would be very much appreciated.
Regards,
Chitu
-------- Message original --------
Sujet: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Request to verify articles for Wikipedia
literature review
De : Travis Kriplean <tra...@cs.washington.edu>
Pour : Research into Wikimedia content and communities
<wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Date : 14/03/2011 3:46 PM
As an HCI/CS researcher who has published at top peer-reviewed conferences
about Wikipedia, but not journals, I'd like to echo James' statements. Journals
are not the norm in CS/HCI research. Knowledge is shared through conferences,
not journals.
On 3/14/11 11:32 AM, James Howison wrote:
Hi there,
Great project; massive but will be much appreciated. We did something similar
for empirical studies of Open Source, recently accepted at ACM Computing
Surveys (PDF pre-print available here [1], article not in print until 2012 (!!
that's another email entirely, bah))
I recognize the need to cut down the number of articles for review, we reviewed
around 600 and that was a multi-year effort. We did that mainly by excluding
conceptual (hence empirical) or passing reference articles (ie we did a
two-step filter on many more articles), but were forced to only do journal
articles for updates during the (long) revision process. I regret that
necessity, it decreases the utility of the work.
Given the publication venues of choice for many academics in this community I do wonder if you
aren't shooting yourself in the foot by excluding peer-reviewed conferences and restricting to
journals. Personally I'd rather read a review that included the top journals and top conferences
than one that included all journals. Or even rather read a review over a shorter time period that
included publications over journals and conferences, or on more specified topics. The interesting
question is, "what do we know about wikipedia" not "what did we publish in journals
about wikipedia". In particular you will find you have systematically excluded the
contribution of HCI authors.
Given the commendable and massive effort you are providing (and your approach
to coverage below is really interesting), getting that wrong at the outset
seems a shame.
Best regards,
James Howison
[1] Crowston, K., Wei, K., Howison, J., and Wiggins, A. (2012). Free (libre)
open source software development: What we know and what we do not know. ACM
Computing Surveys, 44(2):
http://floss.syr.edu/content/freelibre-open-source-software-development-what-we-know-and-what-we-do-not-know
On Mar 14, 2011, at 13:58, Chitu Okoli wrote:
Hi everyone,
We are a research group conducting a systematic literature review on
Wikipedia-related peer-reviewed academic studies published in the English
language. (Although there are many excellent studies in other languages, we
unfortunately do not have the resources to systematically review these at any
kind of acceptable scholarly level. Also, our study is about Wikipedia only,
not about other Wikimedia Foundation projects. However, we do include studies
about other language Wikipedias, as long as the studies are published in
English.) We have completed a search using many major databases of scholarly
research. In a separate thread, we will also talk about research questions
related to our review.
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
