When you consider a "top tier conference", how do you know you are not excluding contributions that might be not just novel but also truly important?
It seems that page rank plays the role of beauty contest in the sense that top-ranked pages are those already in the view of others. I have seen comments that this filters against novelty, possibly crucial novelty. Jack On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Chitu Okoli <chitu.ok...@concordia.ca> wrote: > 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 > > _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
