April 2007 - Air-L - lists.aoir.org

Wikipedia (reply for Mark Bell)
by Luis Gutierrez 27 Apr '07

27 Apr '07

>Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 19:55:33 -0400 >From: "Mark Bell" <typewritermark(a)gmail.com> >Subject: Re: [Air-l] Wikipedia Bibliography >To: air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org >Message-ID: > <732865eb0704261655h66a4f228p41dcdb000ee3bd5f(a)mail.gmail.com> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > >Phoebe, > >I just joined the Wiki research group and I will post it there. Thanks for >the heads up. > >Here is the abstract of my thesis: > >The Transformation of the Encyclopedia: A Textual Analysis and Comparison >of the *Encyclop?dia Britannica* and *Wikipedia* >The purpose of this thesis is to explore the following research question: >Are there grammatical textual differences between *Encyclop?dia Britannica*and >*Wikipedia*? Specifically, this study will focus on the articles for >"Communism" and "Dwight D. Eisenhower" that appear in the online version of >Encyclop?dia* Britannica* and *Wikipedia*. Using a grammatical textual >analysis, the study finds there is little difference grammatically >between*Encyclop?dia Britannica >* and *Wikipedia* though they are very different types of systems. There are >several different types of textual or contextual methods that could expand >on this initial approach to find differences between* Encyclop?dia >Britannica* and *Wikipedia*. > >what are you doing with Wiki's? > > Mark, I do a lot of online research, and wikipedia is my first stop, then google, then more specialized databases if needed. For instance, for biographical and bibliographical research, I feel lucky if the person of interest is in wikipedia. The wikipedia article gives me an overview of the person's life and work, and often a rather complete bibliography. It also gives me external links where I should go for more information. Then I will go to the heavyweights such as the LOC and the WBIS in order to double check the wiki information; many times I don't find anything new. With most library databases now requiring subscription or pay by view, I still manage to get most of the information I need for free. Luis -- Luis T. Gutierrez, Ph.D. Editor, "Solidarity, Sustainability, and Non-Violence" Home page: http://pelicanweb.org/solisust.html Current issue: http://pelicanweb.org/solisustv03n04.html Email: luisgutierrez(a)peoplepc.com

1 0

CFP: Learning and Research In Second Life Preconference Workshop
by Jeremy Hunsinger 27 Apr '07

27 Apr '07

Call for Papers/Participation Please join us in a workshop on learning and research in Second Life (R) on October 17, 2007 in Vancouver at Internet Research 8.0 (http:// wiki.aoir.org/index.php?title=About_IR8.0) Paper Deadline August 15th. Second Life(R) is a 3d virtual environment created by Linden Lab which has captured the attentions of researchers and teachers from around the world from a variety of disciplines. This workshop aims to improve the understanding of Second Life as a Learning and Research environment. It will bring 35 researchers together to collaborate, discuss and workshop diverse topics related to research and learning in Second Life. We will pursue a full-day schedule in which participants will discuss their work and interests on four different topics: learning in Second Life, integrated learning, the contributions of research to the community and ethical research methods. How can we better enable learning in this sphere? How can we better enable research? As a highlight, Robin Linden will give a talk to the group, and members of Linden Lab will likely participate throughout the day. We encourage researchers to submit papers and short biography to slworkshop(a)tmttlt.com which will be selected and distributed amongst participants before the workshop. First invitations will be offered to those who provide full papers for consideration. These papers have two purposes: first is to provide a common platform for understanding our research and teaching and second submitted papers may be considered for publication in an edited volume being produced in relation to the workshop, or possibly in peer reviewed publication derived from the workshop (these are currently under discussion). Subsequent invitation will be made based upon research/teaching statement and biography. If you are interested in participating, please send an email containing your information to slworkshop(a)tmttlt.com. Decisions will be made by September 1st, barring incident. There is a limit of 35 participants at the physical meeting; the event will be simulcast into Second Life. We welcome professionals, faculty and graduate students to participate. This workshop is sponsored by Linden Lab creators of Second Life and is organized by Jeremy Hunsinger and Aleks Krotoski. Free lunch, coffee breaks and the room is included in participation. jeremy hunsinger Information Ethics Fellow, Center for Information Policy Research, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (www.cipr.uwm.edu) wiki.tmttlt.com www.tmttlt.com () ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments http://www.stswiki.org/ sts wiki http://cfp.learning-inquiry.info/ Learning Inquiry-the journal http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series

1 0

Fwd: [ias-opportunities] Call for SOUPS posters and discussion sessions
by Jeremy Hunsinger 26 Apr '07

26 Apr '07

looks interesting... Begin forwarded message: > From: Lorrie Cranor <lorrie+(a)cs.cmu.edu> > Date: April 26, 2007 11:08:35 PM EDT > To: ias-opportunities(a)cerias.purdue.edu > Subject: [ias-opportunities] Call for SOUPS posters and discussion > sessions > Reply-To: Lorrie Cranor <lorrie+(a)cs.cmu.edu> > > Call for Posters and Discussion Sessions > Symposium On Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2007) - July 18-20, > Pittsburgh, PA > http://cups.cs.cmu.edu/soups/2007/ > > SOUPS posters and discussion session proposals are due May 18. See > details below. > > SOUPS registration is now open. The early registration deadline in > June 5. A preliminary program will be posted soon. > > > POSTERS > > We seek poster abstracts describing recent or ongoing research or > experience in all areas of usable privacy and security. Submission of > late breaking results and work in progress is especially > encouraged. Submissions should follow the same formatting instructions > as refereed papers, but should be at most two pages and should not > include categories and subject descriptors, general terms, or > keywords. They should include a copyright block. Accepted poster > abstracts will appear in the ACM Digital Library as part of the ACM > International Conference Proceedings Series. Please follow the final > submission formatting instructions when preparing your poster abstract > to avoid the need to revise poster abstracts after acceptance > decisions are made. In addition, SOUPS will include a poster session > in which authors will exhibit their posters. Note, poster abstracts > should be formatted like short papers, not like posters. Authors of > accepted posters will be sent information about how to prepare and > format posters for the conference. > > > DISCUSSION SESSIONS > > SOUPS will feature parallel, moderated breakout sessions (similar to > Birds of a feather sessions) in which symposium participants will > discuss a topic related to usable privacy and security. These sessions > may include a brief introduction to the topic by the moderator, but > otherwise will not include formal presentations. Discussion session > topics may include, but are not limited to, definitions or metrics, > design critiques, research agendas, or frameworks for collaborative > research. We seek proposals for discussion session topics. Proposals > must include a one paragraph statement of the topic to be discussed > and a one paragraph bio of each proposer that describes their > experience or interest in the topic. Optionally, proposers may submit > up to two pages of background material that can be distributed to > participants and posted on the SOUPS website. Authors of accepted > proposals will be expected to moderate their discussion session and > provide a brief report on their session for posting on the SOUPS web > site after the symposium. > > jeremy hunsinger Information Ethics Fellow, Center for Information Policy Research, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (www.cipr.uwm.edu) () ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments http://www.aoir.org The Association of Internet Researchers http://www.stswiki.org/ stswiki http://cfp.learning-inquiry.info/ LI-the journal http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series

1 0

Re: [Air-l] how to pin down web 2.0
by Lane DeNicola 26 Apr '07

26 Apr '07

Mark Warschaur mentioned O'Reilly Media as the cited progenitor of the term Web 2.0, and I'd argue Tim O'Reilly's (rather lengthy) 2005 article--appropriately titled "What is Web 2.0?"--is probably still the best general source on the concept: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.… According to the concept as built there, Alex Halavais is effectively right, that the term denotes "companies that have attracted funding or make money on the web over the last few years," but also that "it suggests some kind of breaking point with earlier approaches to design," to wit: "In exploring the seven principles above, we've highlighted some of the principal features of Web 2.0. Each of the examples we've explored demonstrates one or more of those key principles, but may miss others. Let's close, therefore, by summarizing what we believe to be the core competencies of Web 2.0 companies: * Services, not packaged software, with cost-effective scalability * Control over unique, hard-to-recreate data sources that get richer as more people use them * Trusting users as co-developers * Harnessing collective intelligence * Leveraging the long tail through customer self-service * Software above the level of a single device * Lightweight user interfaces, development models, AND business models The next time a company claims that it's "Web 2.0," test their features against the list above. The more points they score, the more they are worthy of the name. Remember, though, that excellence in one area may be more telling than some small steps in all seven." I'd advocate the use of the term, if only because of its circulation as industry vernacular, but its use should be well-qualified. As a fluid construct (one used here to designate "companies with certain competencies," rather than, say, qualities of specific technologies) perhaps the best course would be to qualify it as "O'Reilly's (or whomever's) conceptualization of Web 2.0." -- Lane DeNicola Doctoral Candidate | Dept. of Science & Technology Studies Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute http://www.nacresky.com/lad Tried the Science Studies Search Engine? <http://www.nacresky.com/ssse>

11 15

Trouble with journals
by John Postill 26 Apr '07

26 Apr '07

------ Original Message ------ Received: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:54:32 AM BST From: "John Postill" <jpostill(a)usa.net> To: "Maximilian C. Forte" <mforte(a)alcor.concordia.ca>, <medianthro(a)easaonline.org> Subject: [Medianthro] Trouble with journals Max Forte wrote: > I am > also a very passionate proponent of open access publishing, and in that vein I am the > editor of a specialized, peer reviewed journal titled, KACIKE: The Journal of Caribbean > Amerindian History and Anthropology (at www.kacike.org) which has encountered absolutely > *none* of the problems that opponents of open access journals normally list. > I'm glad Max has brought up the subject of journals as I've been discussing this issue with colleagues recently and it seems to me (and others) that something's seriously wrong with how the system works. I've experienced firsthand and heard stories of journal submissions where one is kept waiting anything between 12 and 24 months before hearing any substantial news, and that's after having chased this up with the journal a number of times. At the same time, authors are not allowed to submit the same piece to another journal, so often at the end of a very long wait a rejection comes and they're back to square one having wasted precious months. It's clear that people are busy and that peer reviews take time, but should we really have to wait 12-15 months, or even longer, for a response? Perhaps journals should commit themselves to a reasonable waiting period (say, max 4 months) and publish figures of the time it takes them on average to get back to prospective contributors? Or perhaps contributors themselves should publish or circulate these figures in the public domain? Any thoughts on this? ****************************************** EASA Media Anthropology Network http://www.media-anthropology.net For further information please contact: Dr John Postill Sheffield Hallam University, UK jpostill(a)usa.net To manage your subscription to this mailing list, visit: http://lists.easaonline.org/listinfo.cgi/medianthro-easaonline.org

11 25

Re: [Air-l] on conferences
by Matthew Bernius 26 Apr '07

26 Apr '07

> > Jeremy is correct that AoIR did not publish the research annual (but > he's not correct insofar as it's Peter Lang Publishing that's the > publisher and not "Steve's Publisher" :-)). It was, as usual with all > things AoIR, volunteer work that made it happen, and it was primarily > Mia Consalvo who volunteered. Without here there would not have been > an annual, just as there would not have been one without the program > chairs who served as editors, nor without the contributors. > > It's also correct that the last research annual will be the last one > published by Peter Lang. Sales were abysmal, and while I don't have > the figures in front of me, they were in the neighborhood of fewer > than 100 sold of each. > One option to consider is a print on demand (PoD) journal. While there might be some stigma in releasing it through a digital PoD service like LuLu.com, it seems that it would be mitigated by a peer-review process. The benefit is that it eliminates direct printing costs. The final product could simultaneously be released in PDF form (since you'd need that to build the print file anyway). And once templates are set up, it wouldn't be too hard to "automate," or at least routinize, much of the production workflow. Heck this has the potential for a great XML application. - Matt -- ----------------------------- Matthew Bernius New Media and Customer Intelligence Strategist for Hire mBernius(a)gMail.com http://www.waking-dream.com

2 1

print and online journals
by Jonathan Sterne 26 Apr '07

26 Apr '07

Hi All, I've been reading this discussion with interest as it is a topic about which I am passionate. And because I am avoiding a pile of final exams. I've been involved with Bad Subjects (we were "open access" before "open access" http://bad.eserver.org) since 1994 and recently had a nasty runin with Sage after publishing a piece in New Media and Society (you can read about it at http://superbon.net/?p=461) There are a few issues to disentangle here, I think. 1. The "actual" quality of a journal is not the same thing as its prestige/standing in a field. The latter matters for people's tenure dossiers at many (though not all) institutions; the former matters for all of us when we are actually doing out work. The two may or may not be related. 2. Journals require labor. Not just the reviewing and writing kind, but also the publishing kind, which is the traditional function of publishers. If you remove the publisher, you need some kind of funding stream to pay for the additional resources and labor that a journal uses. Or you need people who are willing to work for free. This is one of the greatest obstacles to the open-access movement and will doom those many new online journals. People think that the main costs are eliminated when you eliminate paper. But almost all those print journals come with some paid staff (often graduate students) who manage the submission and review process. Others are paid for formatting, proofreading and keeping the journal looking good. Those functions are still important. 3. In theory, professors aren't working for free. We draw salaries to do a combination of research, teaching and service. When we write for journals or review for them, we are working on salary. However, one trick of the neoliberal university is to redefine the job: reduce the number of administrative staff in departments or reduce the number of departments and increase their size; move funding obligations to individual faculty who must apply for grants to support their students and sometimes even to support their office supply budgets; increase class size and reduce the number of TAs; and on and on. Eliminating paid positions for journals, while linked to the increased "freeness" of open access, is also linked to the increasing time crunch in the professor job. (This also trickles down to students, who are expected to publish and travel much more, which cuts into the one activity that is most important in graduate education prior to the dissertation: reading). I feel very Capital I, Part I: it's about surplus labor. 4. That said, open access is generally a good thing if your goal is to disseminate what you write. When the Canadian Journal of Communication went open access (it survives through dues and -- I think -- also through grants) their readership shot up. http://www.cjc-online.ca/ The new International Journal of Communication (http://ijoc.org) also has funding behind it, and they've managed to attract some big names in the field, which should probably offset the online prestige issue, at least over time. 5. But dissemination is only one goal. Many journal publishers, like Sage, are more interested in protecting their profits than facilitating the circulation of scholars' ideas. And like it or not, many junior faculty at least feel they have to be concerned about where they publish and not just how many people read or use their material. Which is why we can't just junk the current journal system without also reworking the tenure system. 6. For what it's worth, anything long, I prefer to read on paper. So the answer, to me, is some kind of incrementalism, with a simple, final goal: open access journals with both online and print components that are funded well enough not to extract additional free labor from students and faculty, and which are useful to people -- like assistant professors -- who will still need to partake of the academic prestige economy for the forseeable future. Best, --J, and now back to grading

2 1

Re: [Air-l] Our VT colleagues
by William Bain 26 Apr '07

26 Apr '07

Ellis Godard wrote <<"have to negotiate things" is a moral imperative not, of course, often followed.>> I respectfully take the point. Without wishing to insist on developing a thread that doesn't seem to be getting a lot of attention, I would add that maybe you've struck a realpolitik chord in terms of the reference to Donald Black's "pure sociology". Based only on looking at the article you've referenced (far too little, I admint) the first thing that strikes me is that it's an approach that goes much against the current transdisciplinary grain. On the other hand,k used in conjunction with other approaches, maybe there's a good deal in it. Whether this is the forum for it or not I suppose remains to be seen. Best regards, William William Bain PhD Student Comparative Literature Department of Spanish Philology Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona --------------------------------- Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.

1 0

internet surveying question
by Jeremiah Spence 25 Apr '07

25 Apr '07

I am designing a survey that will be implemented in June with users of telecenters in Brazil that will attempt to rate the skill level or maybe the degree of sophistication of the internet user. Does anyone know of any existing surveys or literature that I might be able to explore? Thanks, Jeremiah Spence PhD Student Department of Radio, Television & Film Population Research Center University of Texas at Austin jspence5(a)mail.utexas.edu

2 1

wikipedia video unlikely in real wikilife
by Barry Wellman 25 Apr '07

25 Apr '07

Some one was asking about a video showing an edit war on Wikipedia. I think it is not likely in real Wikipedia life because of the Three-Revert Rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule Which basically says don't revert an article three times in a 24 hour period. This is an official Wikipolicy. And the norm is that you can't use meatpuppets or sockpuppets to evade. OTOH, as best as I can glean, it is not automatic in that the software doesn't ban you if you go over 3. But I've seen multiple cases of a person complaining (often the other you're editing) to an admin who then blocks the 3-reverter for 24 hours or more. I know I've been tempted to do multiple reverts in one article (the other person is always wrong, eh?), but decided I didn't want to be in edit war hell. And no, I am not doing systematic research on Wikipee. Just a Wikiuser. Barry Wellman _____________________________________________________________________ Barry Wellman S.D. Clark Professor of Sociology NetLab Director Centre for Urban & Community Studies University of Toronto 455 Spadina Avenue Toronto Canada M5S 2G8 fax:+1-416-978-7162 wellman at chass.utoronto.ca http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman for fun: http://chass.utoronto.ca/oldnew/cybertimes.php _____________________________________________________________________

2 1