+1 (I for one have full confidence that attempts by an academic to force citations of their work will remain where they belong: in peer reviews of every paper I submit ;p)
On 6 February 2015 at 10:24, Aaron Halfaker <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree that we could be doing something interesting with the social > dynamics of Wikipedia editing by releasing this dataset -- and that some new > problems may result. However, I think that it's much better to have too > much academic interest than not enough. With a little AGF and diligence, we > ought to be able to deal with this problem like we've dealt with quality > control concerns in the past. Academics have to be very careful about their > reputation, and it's hard to cite your own unnecessarily without giving up > who you are since your name's going to be on the paper. > > Either way, this is a useful dataset for library sciences work and it's > public anyway. We're just making it easier to work with. Honestly, that's > how I got started working in this space -- helping someone get data for > their own research. > > -Aaron > > On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 5:50 AM, mjn <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I agree it's not a new worry, but it might change the nature of the >> problem a bit, and is worth at least being vigilant about. I did have a >> similar idea some years ago, to compute an "impact factor" for >> being-cited-on-Wikipedia, but after discussing it with some colleagues, >> didn't do so specifically because of the worry that it would encourage >> more gaming of Wikipedia citations. Of course it's inevitable that >> someone would eventually do it, but I still think it was probably right >> on balance to not push that date forward. >> >> Regarding the SEO analogy, the external links on Wikipedia are on >> average not the best part of Wikipedia, so it's not a very heartening >> The citations for now are not nearly as spammy as the external links >> are, and I hope it stays that way! >> >> It's of course not new that there is an incentive to spam citations. >> Even without explicit Wikipedia-citation-tracking, there are incentives >> to spam marginally relevant citations in order to increase perceived >> prominence. Maybe being in a Wikipedia article will get your paper in >> front of more grad students who will end up citing it "for real" after >> encountering it on Wikipedia, etc. A direct citation count feels like >> it's likely to exacerbate that, since now removing an irrelevant >> citation to someone's article is a direct attack on their metrics! >> Though it's possible the actual effect on editing patterns will be >> small. >> >> From a research perspective, the new datasets of citations might be >> interesting to track over time, and correlate back to editors, to see if >> there are any interesting (or "interesting") patterns. >> >> -Mark >> >> -- >> mjn | http://www.anadrome.org >> >> Oliver Keyes <[email protected]> writes: >> >> > And SEO spammers will add themselves, too! This is not a new problem. >> > >> > On Thursday, 5 February 2015, Kerry Raymond <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> Do I understand this correctly? That Wikipedia articles that cite >> >> academic publications will be included in citation count now (at least >> >> for >> >> altmetrics). While that’s great recognition for Wikipedia as a corpus >> >> of >> >> scholarly work, does that mean Wikipedia will be overrun with academic >> >> authors adding citations to their academic papers in any Wikipedia >> >> article >> >> they can get away with in order to improve their citation counts for >> >> their >> >> CVs? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I note that generally we can spot self-citation because the two papers >> >> will have an author name in common, but with the ability to edit >> >> Wikipedia >> >> anonymously and pseudonymously means that we cannot spot self-citation. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> While judging research purely on citation counts is a deeply flawed >> >> method >> >> of assessment, nonetheless it is a reality and the pressure on folks to >> >> “game” the system is tremendous given the role it can play in >> >> appointment, >> >> tenure, promotion and grant applications. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On the positive side, we might be able to get rid of a lot of >> >> citation-needed tags. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Kerry >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] >> >> >> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> >> >> [mailto:[email protected] >> >> >> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>] >> >> *On Behalf Of *Pine W >> >> *Sent:* Friday, 6 February 2015 8:13 AM >> >> *To:* Wiki Research-l; Raymond Leonard; Wikimedia & GLAM collaboration >> >> [Public]; North American Cultural Partnerships >> >> *Subject:* [Wiki-research-l] Altmetric.com now tracks Wikipedia >> >> citations >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> FYI: >> >> >> >> http://www.altmetric.com/blog/new-source-alert-wikipedia/ >> >> >> >> Pine >> >> >> >> This is an Encyclopedia <https://www.wikipedia.org/> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> * One gateway to the wide garden of knowledge, where lies The deep rock >> >> of >> >> our past, in which we must delve The well of our future, The clear >> >> water we >> >> must leave untainted for those who come after us, The fertile earth, in >> >> which truth may grow in bright places, tended by many hands, And the >> >> broad >> >> fall of sunshine, warming our first steps toward knowing how much we do >> >> not >> >> know. —Catherine Munro * >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wiki-research-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > -- Oliver Keyes Research Analyst Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
