+ \note{I've been doing this for many years. I started in 2008 and
+ skipped one year, I think.
+
+ This began as an excuse for me to make sure I was up to date on
+ Wikimedia Research.}
+
+\end{frame}
+
+%% SLIDE: Anecdote from Wikimania 2008
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\renewcommand{\quotetxt}{``This talk will try to [provide] a quick
+ tour – a literature review in the scholarly parlance – of the last
+ year's academic landscape around Wikimedia and its projects geared
+ at non-academic editors and readers. It will try to categorize,
+ distill, and describe, from a birds eye view, the academic landscape
+ as it is shaping up around
+ our project.''\\
+ \hfill – \e{From my Wikimania 2008 Submission}}
+\begin{frame}
+
+ {\smaller \quotetxt}
+
+ \pause
+ \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/google_scholar_result.png}
+
+ \pause
+ \tikz{\draw (current page.center) [xshift=-2.1cm, yshift=0.9cm, color=red]
+ ellipse (1.5cm and 0.5cm);}
+
+ \note<1>{Back in Wikimania 2008, I set out to run a session at
+ Wikimania that would provide a comprehensive literature review of
+ articles in Wikipedia published in the last year.
+
+ \begin{quote}
+ \quotetxt
+ \end{quote}
+
+ Then, about two weeks before Wikimania, I did the scholar search
+ so I could build the literature.}
+
+ \note<2->{I tried to import the whole list into Zotero and managed
+ to get banned for abusing the Google Scholar because they thought
+ that no human being could realistically consume the amount of
+ material published on Wikipedia that year.
+
+ So anyway, I had a 45 minute talk so it worked out to 3.45 seconds
+ to per paper...
+
+ And believe it or, this year is even bigger.
+
+ And my talk is even shorter.}
+
+\end{frame}
+
+%% SLIDE: Citations Per Year
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\begin{frame}
+
+ \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/citations_by_year.pdf}
+
+ \centering
+
+ {\smaller \emph{Number of citation, per year, with the term
+ “wikipedia” in the title.\\
+ (Source: Google scholar results. Accessed: 2013-08-06)}}
+
+ \note{Academics have written \e{a lot} of papers about
+ Wikipedia. There are more than 500 papers published about
+ Wikipedia each year and although we've reached a peak, it's not
+ really slowing.
+
+ We're on track this year to meet or surpass that.}
+
+\end{frame}
+
+% %% SLIDE: breakdown by time?
+% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+% \begin{frame}
+
+% \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/wikipeda_citations_bytime.png}
+% \end{frame}
+
+
+%% SLIDE: My Scope Conditions
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\begin{frame}
+
+ \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/multiple_issues.png}
+
+ \larger \larger
+ In selecting papers for this session, the goal is always to choose
+ examples of work that:
+
+ \begin{itemize}
+ \larger \larger
+ \item Represent \e{important themes} from Wikipedia in the last year.
+ \item Research that is likely to be of \e{interest} to Wikimedians.
+ \item Research by people who are \e{not at Wikimania}.
+ \end{itemize}
+
+ Within these goals, the selections are \e{incomplete}, and \e{wrong}.
+
+ \note{This is my disclaimer slide...}
+\end{frame}
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\section{Paper Summaries}
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+
+\subsection{Wikipedia in Context}
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+
+%% SLIDE: Reagle and Loveland Citation
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\begin{frame}{Wikipedia in Historical Context}
+
+ \larger \larger Loveland, Jeff, and Joseph Reagle. “Wikipedia and
+ Encyclopedic Production.” \emph{New Media \& Society}
+ (2013). DOI:10.1177/1461444812470428.
+
+ \note{Jeff Loveland is a historian of encyclopedias. Joseph Reagle
+ is a media studies scholar who wrote the first book length
+ academic treatment of Wikipedia.
+
+ Loveland heard about Reagle's book through an article in the
+ Signpost but felt it was weak on history. So, they got together
+ and put together a great piece of work that places Wikipedia into
+ historical context.}
+\end{frame}
+
+%% SLIDE: Reagle and Loveland Overview
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\begin{frame}{Wikipedia in Historical Context}
+
+ \larger \larger \larger Loveland and Reagle cite three modes
+ of encyclopedia production:
+
+ \begin{itemize}
+ \larger \larger \larger
+ \item Compulsive collection
+ \item Stigmertic accumluative
+ \item Corporate production
+ \end{itemize}
+
+ In each case, they see a connection between Wikipedia and methods of
+ the past.
+
+ \note<1>{The authors identify three historical methods through which
+ encyclopedias were written and they suggest that, in different
+ ways, each plays a role in Wikipedia:
+
+ \begin{itemize}
+ \item \e{Compulsive collection} were people who were individually
+ driven to collect information. Think Pliny the Elder. And then
+ think Wikipediaholics and WikiBreak enforcing software.
+ \item \e{Stigmergic accumulation} references the `stigmergy' is a
+ word form Zoology that describes how wasps build nests and
+ references accumulation. In the past, this meant piracy and
+ building off of others. In Wikipedia, it means revision,
+ incorporation of other sources, and more.
+ \item \e{Corporate productin} means working together with many
+ other people. Diderot took advantage of at least 140 different
+ authors. Think the OED collecting information from
+ others. Wikipedia of course uses a similar model.
+ \end{itemize}
+
+ In each case, they think that Wikipedia's model is not a total
+ break from the past in the way many people talk abou it.}
+
+ \note<2>{Now my own bias as a reseacher is to look to more
+ quantitative or easy to apply work.
+
+ \e{Takeaway:} But I think is a great example how much of the more humanities
+ focused work on Wikipedia can do a wonderful job of providing us
+ context and a better way to think about and talk about what we're
+ doing.}
+\end{frame}
+
+
+\subsection{Wikipedia as Data Source}
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+
+%% SLIDE: Citation
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\begin{frame}{Wikipedia as Data Source}
+
+ \larger \larger
+
+ Sérasset, Giles. “Dbnary: Wiktionary as a LMF Based Multilingual RDF
+ Network.” In \emph{Proceedings of the Eight International Conference on
+ Language Resources and Evaluation}, 2012.
+
+ \begin{center}
+ \visible<2>{\url{http://dbnary.forge.imag.fr/}}
+ \end{center}
+
+ \note<1>{There's a whole genre of paper that is about Wikipedia only
+ in that is uses WP as its dataset. This might even be a
+ \e{majority} of all papers published on Wikipedia.
+
+ This paper up here, on a project called ``Dbnary'', is attempt to
+ build a \e{lexical network} out of Wiktionary data. Essentially,
+ they are using Wiktionary as a network of words and their
+ relationships -- including definitions, translations, synonyms,
+ antonyms, etc. -- in different languages, often connected through
+ common etymologies.
+
+ Lexical networks are are essential to a whole family of
+ computerized natural language processing and a variety of
+ linguistic projects.
+
+ What I like about what Sérraseset did was that he created not only
+ use it as a dataset but really did a bunch of work to make
+ Wiktionary more useful to other resources.}
+
+ \note<2>{The researcher has created an open source tool – available
+ at the URL above.
+
+ And anybody can use this tool, along with the dumps as published
+ by WMF, to produce their own, on their computers, is about 5
+ minutes.
+
+ The paper also contains a list of challenges that Wiktionary
+ contributors might be able to use to extract data more effectively
+ in the future.
+
+ \e{Takeaway:} I think that this paper suggests, like a lot of
+ simliar work, how Wikipedia's effect is broader than just what
+ comes through viewership on the web. And that there are important
+ ways we might be able to work with researchers like this to become
+ more effective.}
+
+\end{frame}
+
+\subsection{Wikipedia and Quality}
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+
+%% SLIDE: Wikipedia and Quality Citation
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\begin{frame}{Wikipedia and Quality}
+
+ \larger \larger
+
+ Volsky, Peter G., Cristina M. Baldassari, Sirisha Mushti, and Craig
+ S. Derkay. ``Quality of Internet Information in Pediatric
+ Otolaryngology: A Comparison of Three Most Referenced Websites.''
+ \emph{International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology} 76,
+ no. 9 (September 2012): 1312–1316. DOI:10.1016/j.ijporl.2012.05.026.
+
+ \note{There is little industry of articles designed to evaluate
+ Wikipedia's quality. There are literally dozens of these each
+ year. And one that thing that frustrates me is that its very rare
+ that the people doing these coordinate with Wikipedia or that
+ Wikipedians systematically reach out to the people doing these to
+ learn.
+
+ This is an example of one from pediatric otolayrnology. That is,
+ the study of dieases of the ear, nose, and throat -- in children.}
+
+\end{frame}
+
+%% SLIDE: Results
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\begin{frame}{Wikipedia and Quality: Evaluation of Otolaryngology Articles}
+ \smaller \smaller
+ \begin{columns}
+ \column{0.53\textwidth}
+ \centering
+
+ \includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{figures/oto-content_accuracy.png}
+
+ Accuracy as scored for content against a rubric\\
+ developed from otolaryngology textbooks.
+
+ \bigskip
+
+ \includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{figures/oto-errors_omissions.png}
+
+ Mean numbers of errors and omissions.
+
+ \column{0.47\textwidth}
+ \centering
+
+ \includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{figures/oto_reading_level.png}
+
+ Composite score for user interface.
+
+ \bigskip
+
+ \includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{figures/oto-user_interface.png}
+
+ Flesch–Kinkaid Reading Level.
+
+ \end{columns}
+
+ \bigskip
+
+ {\centering
+ {\larger WK=Wikipedia; ML=MedLinePlus; EM=eMedicine.}
+
+ }
+
+ \note{Like many of these studies, this study cmpares Wikipedia to
+ other sites. In this case, eMedicne, and Medicine Plus. They used
+ a series of textbooks and experts to evaluate the the content
+ errors and they used some standard systems to evaluate usability
+ and reading level.
+
+ They find that Wikipedia has the most errors, the least accuracy,
+ aa medium reading level. But similar in most cases to MedLinePlus.
+
+ And Wikipedia had a rather good user interface compared to the
+ others.
+
+ I'm not sure what that says about the others user interface.
+
+ \e{Takeaway:} We need to be better about getting these datsets and
+ helping integrate these into improving the encyclopedia.}
projects / state_of_wikimedia_research_2013 / commitdiff
