Also some coverage here in the Economist:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2014/09/science-web
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 3:32 AM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
Has this been considered? It seems to apply to us in many ways.
AM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
nemow...@gmail.comwrote:
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.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikistat_csv
In general: please edit https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki
Is there a way to retrieve a canonical list of bots on enwiki or elsewhere?
I'm interested in omitting automated revisions (sorry Stuart!) for the
purposes of building co-authorship networks.
Grabbing everything under 'Category:All Wikipedia bots' excludes some major
ones like SmackBot, Cydebot,
How does one cite emails in ACM proceedings format? :)
On Sunday, May 18, 2014, R.Stuart Geiger sgei...@gmail.com 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
bot, ask
Check out Michael Kummer's paper that looks at a similar topic (contagion
in pageviews among linked articles) from an econometrics perspective:
Spillovers in Networks of User Generated Content – Evidence from 23
Natural Experiments on Wikipedia
THE 8TH INTERNATIONAL AAAI CONFERENCE ON WEBLOGS AND SOCIAL MEDIA (ICWSM-14)
SPONSORED BY THE ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
* Abstracts Due: January 15, 2014 (by 11:59 pm PST)
* Full Papers Due: January 22, 2014 (by 11:59 pm PST)
* Acceptance Notification: March 10,
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
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.
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Brian Keegan bkee
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
Joe Reagle's Good Faith Collaboration is an excellent alternative.
On Sep 5, 2012 4:37 AM, Hrafn H Malmquist h...@hi.is 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
There's a good amount of research
Jullien 2012 has an excellent (although by no means exhaustive) lit review
of extant Wikipedia research including many network analysis papers:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2053597
Welser, et al. 2011 use network analysis approaches to
),
not in accord with my expectation for such a topic.
cheers,
.Taha
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 9:05 PM, Brian Keegan bkee...@northwestern.edu
wrote:
My preliminary analysis of (English) Wikipedia's response to the 2012
Aurora shootings. Data is available at the bottom
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 University
*8th International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration (WikiSym)
*August 27-29 -- Linz, Austria
Call for Participation: *Early Registration Deadline is July 29*
The International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration (WikiSym) is
the premier conference on open collaboration and
To be clear, my rhetorical flourish was not a hostile reaction to the
academy itself (I am a dissertating PhD candidate after all) but to rather
to its members' patronizing attitudes as embodied by Richard's
mischaracterization of Piotr's point and institutional powers' model of
profiting from
Calling all PhD students who study Wikis and open collaboration! The
deadline for the WikiSym 2012 doctoral symposium is Friday, April 27. As a
prior participant, this is a great venue to get feedback on your research
design, theories, and methods from some outstanding scholars while
networking
16 matches
Mail list logo
