X-Git-Url: https://projects.mako.cc/source/state_of_wikimedia_research_2015/blobdiff_plain/cf79c51c1cffe95eed4fe82aa967fb08f992cf5a..3fc3ed7fb7e392a6dc9441d958ada9c257d587ea:/20150717-wikimania_research.tex

diff --git a/20150717-wikimania_research.tex b/20150717-wikimania_research.tex
index 6da9b9b..967244d 100644
--- a/20150717-wikimania_research.tex
+++ b/20150717-wikimania_research.tex
@@ -319,59 +319,175 @@
 \section{Paper Summaries}
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 
-% \subsection{Event Prediction}
+\begin{frame}
+  \centertext{6em}{Wikipedia as a Source of Data}
 
-% \begin{frame}
-%   \centertext{6em}{Event Prediction}
+  \note{Mako}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}
 
-%   \note{Mako
+  \frametitle{Wikipedia as a source of data}
 
-%     This was the year that studies of readership of Wikipedia really
-%     blossomed. People figured out how to use the view data. Much of
-%     what they used it for was prediction.}
-% \end{frame}
+  \larger \larger Ronen, S., Gonçalves, B., Hu, K. Z., Vespignani, A.,
+  Pinker, S., \& Hidalgo, C. A. (2014). \e{Links that speak: The
+    global language network and its association with global
+    fame}. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(52),
+  E5616—E5622. \href{http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1410931111}{doi:10.1073/pnas.1410931111}
 
-% \begin{frame}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}
+  \frametitle{Wikipedia as a source of data: Ronen et al.}
+
+  \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/ronen_fig1.png}
+\end{frame}
+
+\subsection{Community and Organization}
+
+\begin{frame}
+  \centertext{6em}{Community and Organization}
+
+  \note{Mako}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}
+
+  \frametitle{Community and organization}
+
+  \larger \larger Warncke-Wang, M., Ranjan, V., Terveen, L., \& Hecht,
+  B. (2015). \e{Misalignment Between Supply and Demand of Quality Content
+  in Peer Production Communities}. In Ninth International AAAI
+  Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM).
+
+  % Retrieved from \href{http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM15/paper/view/10591}{http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM15/paper/view/10591}
+
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}
+  \frametitle{Community and organization: Warncke-Wang et al.}
+
+  \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/warncke-english_confusion.pdf}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}
+  \frametitle{Community and organization: Warncke-Wang et al.}
+
+  \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/warncke-english_overunder.pdf}
+\end{frame}
+
+\subsection{Content Quality}
+
+\begin{frame}
+   \centertext{6em}{Content quality}
+
+   \note{Tilman
+
+     A decade after the landmark "Nature" study, there still aren't too
+     many systematic evaluations of the accuracy of Wikipedia's content. 
+     Health articles continue to receive scrutiny, though. With good 
+     reason: Wikipedia is "the most frequently consulted online health 
+     care resource globally" [NEJM article].}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}
   
-%   \frametitle{Wikipedia Viewership and Flu Prediction}
+\frametitle{Quality of drug articles}
+
+   \larger \larger
+   Hwang et al., ``\e{Drug Safety in the Digital Age}.'' 
+   N Engl J Med 2014; 370:2460-2462 June 26, 2014 
+   \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1401767}{doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1401767}.
+   \bigskip
+   
+   Kräenbring et al., \e{Accuracy and completeness of drug 
+   information in Wikipedia: a comparison with standard textbooks of 
+   pharmacology}. PLoS One 9 (9): e106930. 
+   \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0106930}
+   {doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0106930}
+   
+
+   \note{Tilman
+   
+     We selected two papers that evaluated drug articles, with 
+     different approaches. The first one is a short article in the 
+     extremely prestigious NEJM.}
+\end{frame}
 
-%   \larger \larger McIver, David J., and John
-%   S. Brownstein. ``\e{Wikipedia Usage Estimates Prevalence of
-%     Influenza-Like Illness in the United States in Near Real-Time}.''
-%   PLoS Comput Biol 10, no. 4 (April 17, 2014):
-%   e1003581. \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003581}{doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003581}.
+\begin{frame}
+  
+\frametitle{Quality of drug articles: NEJM}
 
-% \end{frame}
+   \includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{figures/Pradaxa_tweet_FDAMedWach.png}
+   % from https://twitter.com/FDAMedWatch/status/281547908095041536
+   % = first one in the list at http://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMp1401767/suppl_file/nejmp1401767_appendix.pdf
+   \includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{figures/Dabitragan_Contraindications_WP_FDA_warning}
+  
+   \tikz{\node [yshift=1.5cm,xshift=-0.4cm] at (current page.center) {\includegraphics[width=1.5cm]{figures/long-arrow-right.png}};}
+   \begin{itemize}
+     \larger \larger
+     \item The US Food and Drug Administration (\e{FDA}) frequently 
+     issues safety warnings about prescription drugs. How long does it 
+     take until these are reflected on English Wikipedia?
+     \item 41\% updated within two weeks (58\% for high-prevalent 
+     diseases), but 36\% still unchanged after more than a year.
+   \end{itemize}
+   
+   \note{Tilman
+   
+   Articles about drugs used to treat high-prevalent diseases (affecting 
+   > 1 m Americans / year) were updated faster.\\ 
+   But the result still caused concern.\\
+   Authors find "there may be a benefit to enabling the FDA to update or 
+   automatically feed new safety communications to Wikipedia pages, as 
+   it does with WebMD". The paper raised awareness among WikiProject 
+   Medicine editors, but there's no systematic updating mechanism yet.}
 
-% \begin{frame}
 
-%   \frametitle{Wikipedia Viewership and Flu Prediction: Motivation}
+\end{frame}
 
-%   \begin{itemize}
-%     \larger \larger
-%   \item \e{Google Flu Trends} uses search engine queries to try to
-%     predict influenza epidemics more quickly than traditional methods.
-%   \item ..but it has been criticized as being biased (e.g., by media coverage).
-%   \item WP is freely available and viewership data is free, unlike
-%     Google which is proprietary.
+\begin{frame}
 
-%   \end{itemize}
+\frametitle{Quality of drug articles: PLoS One}
 
-%   \note{2009 H1N1 Swine Flu broke GFT.}
-% \end{frame}
+  \begin{itemize}
+   \larger \larger \larger
+   \item Selected 100 drugs from German undergrad curriculum in pharmacology
+   \item Extracted information from two standard textbooks
+   \item "Accuracy of drug information in [German] Wikipedia was 99.7\%±0.2\% when compared to the textbook data." Similar results for English Wikipedia
+   \end{itemize}
 
-% \begin{frame}
+\end{frame}
 
-%   \frametitle{Wikipedia Viewership and Flu Prediction: Methods}
 
-%   \begin{itemize}
-%   \larger \larger \larger
-%   \item Measure traffic to flu related articles on Wikipedia
-%   \item Compare to the ``gold standard'' data from the Center for
-%     Disease Control (CDC)
-%   \end{itemize}
+\begin{frame}
+
+\frametitle{Quality of drug articles: PLoS One}
+
+  \begin{itemize}
+   \larger \larger \larger
+   \item Completeness (as compared to the textbooks):
+   \begin{itemize} \larger \larger
+     \item 83.8\% (of 224 statements) for German WP
+     \item 87.2\% for English WP
+   \end{itemize}   
+   \item Completeness of contraindications information was 100\% in the En WP sample.
+   \item English WP cited academic publications more often than German WP.
+   \item Quality "significantly improved" in drug articles assessed 
+        in a 2010 study.
+   \end{itemize}
+
+    \note{Tilman
+    
+       The majority of the missing information (62.5\%) on German WP 
+       was judged non-relevant for undergrad students.
+    
+       The result on completeness of contraindications information is 
+       somewhat in contrast with the NEJM study. Then again, the 
+       textbooks were probably not perfectly up-to-date either.}
+\end{frame}
+
 
-% \end{frame}
 
 % \begin{frame}
 %   \frametitle{Wikipedia Viewership and Flu Prediction: Results}