Welcome. 22:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Here's a template:
Hello, Jodi, and welcome to AcaWiki! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Post a Summary
- How to edit a page
- Import from BibTeX or Drag-and-drop from Zotero
- About AcaWiki
- Posting Guidelines
There's a lot to do around here, so I hope you'll stay with us to add summaries and make many more improvements this wiki needs! If you need help, take a look at the AcaWiki:FAQ, ask me on my talk page, or check out other ways to get in touch. Again, welcome! Jodi.a.schneider
How to fave a page
Hi Jodi, i was just checking out some of your design features and noticed that Predecessors of preprint servers was labeled "Summary favorited 0 times". I wanted to try this feature and fave the page but couldn't see how to do it — can you please give me a hint? Thanks! --Daniel Mietchen 10:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Daniel! It's a bit tricky at the moment. Go to your own user page, edit it, and add the title of the page in the line called Favorites. Hopefully in the future you'll be able to add a Favorite right on the page itself! Jodi.a.schneider 14:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the hint — hadn't seen that before. An alternative to do this would be something like this but you seem to have deprecated the use of categories. I also saw no "undo" for this edit, not sure whether that can really be regarded as a feature. And the captcha for adding diff links from AcaWiki is disturbing. --Daniel Mietchen 14:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, categories could be useful in that regard. Not sure what you mean about the undo. Where did you expect that?
- You're not the first person to remark about the captcha. We need to revisit that, though I think it does deter spam links. Do you mean that you're getting a captcha when you're adding links from AcaWiki itself? Haven't experienced that myself, but that would be a crucial fix, if so.
- As for the undo, dunno what my problem was — probably just oversight on my part.
- Re: Captcha: The link I provided in my previous message is to a page diff on AcaWiki. I entered it without using plainlinks formatting, and it was thus handled like external links. That is annoying. --Daniel Mietchen 21:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I am wondering if there has been any thought about a place to post summary or literature review requests? Might be nice to encourage faster reviews of new and/or popular research papers.
- Good idea! I've added a section on the literature review page. Jodi.a.schneider 12:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I have 300 or so articles summaries I am interested in uploading in the next few months. Everything is currently in Zotero but I'm interested in moving out.
Moving moving through BibTex seems like an unnecessary and unnecessary fault-prone step. I have written Zotero style files before and should be able to write one for the AcaWiki template syntax so that folks can just 'Alt-Q' and paste formatted Zotero entries in. Maybe I can even write a Zotero plugin so folks can just share/create directly from within Zotero. Since I'm planning on doing this a few hundred times, it seems like investing a little time up front would be useful.
I have a questions:
- Do you know of anyone else who has worked on Zotero/AcaWiki integration. I could find anything searching around but I thought I would ask.
- Is there documentation on the syntax/form that AcaWiki is storing stuff in. Is the cite using Semantic Mediawiki? Where can I find documentation.
Thanks in advance for any help! Please leave me a comment on my talk page. -- Benjamin Mako Hill 21:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- The closest I know of is http://clinical.uthscsa.edu/cite/ — neither Zotero nor specifically AcaWiki. I would be interested in helping out, since integration with wikis would make Zotero much more interesting to me (I am currently with Papers for the desktop, Mendeley online). --Daniel Mietchen 09:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm happy to upload the CSL file into Zotero and I'm sure they'll be happy to have it. I would like someone else here to use it and check it out first though. I just tried to install it on a new computer and realized that the published version is missing a fix I must have made on my normal laptop that includes listing whether the journal is open access or not. I've tried to look through the summary template to add new fields to the documentation/example code part that is actually in the renderer since that's what I looked mistakeningly thinking that the documentation portion was up to date. I think it's pretty good now but I'd like to see someone else using this before I bother putting it in Zotero core where I'll start being bound by their release cycle going forward. —mako๛ 22:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- I used it to create Tweet, Tweet, Retweet: Conversational Aspects of Retweeting on Twitter. I didn't notice any problems. I'm a big Zotero user so this will definitely encourage me to add more papers to AcaWiki! Listing whether a journal is open access or not would defnitely be useful.
- Hmm, is it AcaWiki documentation that's not up-to-date? I'm just volunteering now, between Ph.D. studies, but I'd like to help keep stuff up to date, so let me know if there's something that should be fixed. Don't quite get what you're saying about the renderer, but would like to understand... All your suggestions have been really helpful!Jodi.a.schneider 22:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- The documentation issue was just that a bunch of the fields being generated by the form where not displayed in the "example" documentation part of the template on Template:Summary. I am not super good at reading Medaiwiki templates but I think I just added the missing ones. I also just updated my CSL file so that it automatically generates the relevance field and the pub_open_access in the template. Try it out! I think it's working pretty well.
- I really appreciate all your help. I only contacted you because you were the only person that I saw who was active based on the recent recent changes page so I figured you might be able to help point me in the right directions. And you were! :) Thanks again for all your help! —mako๛ 00:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- The CSL rocks. I just used the updated version to add FeedWinnower: layering structures over collections of information streams, and it did autogenerate relevance' and pub_open_access. This makes it *way* easier to add summaries. Yeah!
- As for documentation--cool, glad you could figure out what was missing! Thanks for adding it! Jodi.a.schneider 12:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Add User Form
The add user form mentions "Institution, City, State". Probably this should be (or include!) country, no? If I could see links to edit the form text myself, I would do it myself. --Benjamin Mako Hill 21:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Good point, Benjamin! I've added Country. (The form can be edited at  by the way.) Next question: what should we put in place of State? Discuss at AcaWiki_talk:User. Jodi.a.schneider 11:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm adding (what seems to me!) a largish amount of content to Acawiki and am slightly paranoid about things like backups and making sure that data is available going forward.
Regardless of Acawiki's own backup solutions (which I'd be interested in hearing about), do you think it would be possible to publish full Mediawiki database dumps so that community members and other people can download and keep their own copies? You can follow these instructions and it seems like that a simple cronjob would probably do the trick! Let me know! —mako๛
- I should add. If you want a volunteer to do this, and are happy to give me access, I'd be happy to set this up myself. —mako๛ 16:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Awesome! Thanks! Are these being called from a cronjob automatically? How often are they being made? —mako๛ 15:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Daily cronjob, if I understand correctly. Jodi.a.schneider 15:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Errors and Slowness
Two issues. The first is that Acawiki has been incredibly slow and flaky over the last couple weeks. I've often had to reload/resubmit pages 3-4 times in order to get one to go through without timing out. It's bad for viewing and particularly bad for submission. It feels to me like the server is under high load or not coping. If that is in fact the case, I can probably help out with hosting. The actual utilization of the site seems extremely minimal. Who should I talk to about this.
- Hey Mako, I filed this as http://code.creativecommons.org/issues/issue593 , I've been having similar issues. Jodi.a.schneider 18:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Error creating thumbnail: sh: wmf2eps: command not found
- convert: Delegate failed `"wmf2eps" -o "%o" "%i"'.
- convert: unable to open image `/tmp/magick-XXi6wgkN': No such file or directory.
- convert: unable to load module `/usr/lib/ImageMagick-6.3.7/modules-Q16/coders/svg.la': file not found.
- convert: UnableToOpenBlob `/tmp/magick-XXi6wgkN': No such file or directory.
- convert: missing an image filename `PNG:/var/www/acawiki.org/www/images/thumb/b/be/Mcgrath_typology_of_tasks.svg/716px-Mcgrath_typology_of_tasks.svg.png'.
- Thanks again! Reported this one, too: http://code.creativecommons.org/issues/issue594 Jodi.a.schneider 18:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Update! I just spent an hour or so with nkinakde (the CC sysadmin) on IRC and had him work through basically all the issues I've been having. (1) SVGs are fixed. (2) The slowness seemed to have to do with the parser cache being turned off (!) due to some semantic mediawiki calendar stuff that Creative Commons was doing on a different wiki. It's been address here so we should be in the clear. (3) I had him turn off the CAPTCHA for users who have confirmed over email. It doesn't really fix the issue that the site is treating changes to category or subject as an external link, but it mean that users like myself don't have to keep solving hundreds of CAPTCHAs. The site is working much better for me. —mako๛ 22:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for that! I really appreciate the work you're putting into this! Great thing about CAPTCHA's--that's completely sensible! Unfortunately, I can't upload images at all at the moment, have put in a bug about that: http://code.creativecommons.org/issues/issue595 Jodi.a.schneider 11:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Article naming standard
I've been struggling with the title of summary articles as I've been uploading a bunch of new articles. I'm not really happy with any of the options but have come to the conclusions but think that the only truly bad standard is no standard at all -- exactly what we have now.
Can you check out my proposal to move to standardize on sentence case and let me know what you think? —mako๛ 22:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Protected pages and empty summary articles
A couple more issues that (now that the site is snappy!) I thought I'd be bring up.
- There are a few protected pages that I'd like to be able to edit. AcaWiki:FAQ is one. AcaWiki:Posting Guidelines is another (I'd like to remove the 300-700 word thing or at least change it to say that the core of the article should be that long. Book summaries could -- and maybe should -- be much longer, even if we don't have great metadata support for them yet.
- There are a bunch of essentially empty summaries on the site. I guess they were created to test the uploading framework? I think we should probably delete these. I use red links to articles to point out that there isn't a summary on it yet. I can think of arguments for keeping them but think that, on balance, it's probably better not to have them. If you disagree strongly, maybe we can consider some category-based scheme for noting which summaries are just shells.
- Yeah, you should definitely have a bureaucrat bit. nkinkade is probably the best person to help with that.
- I disagree about empty summaries, because it's still a pain to upload metadata. For myself, I've been adding metadata first, then going back to add summaries. But you're right, there's a problem with the current setup.
- I think it would be great to have a category for these, and advertise them as "summary wanted". Daniel Mitchen had  a template. That would be one way to go. A few were hand tagged "needs summary" but automating is definitely necessary! Jodi.a.schneider 11:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Copyright Status for Images
Hi! I've noticed that you've started uploading figures for articles as well. As you know, I've begun to do this and I think it's a great way to improve articles!
I noticed that at least some of your articles (e.g., Media:Groza2009DocumentFramework.png) see to be "screenshots" taken right from the article. If you take these, we should make sure we have permission to use these and to relicense them under CC BY-SA or under a compatible free culture license. I know that Open CourseWare spends a huge amount of time and money reproducing figures and tables from academic papers so that they can use them without copyright so this is something we should probably be careful about.
If you are uploading a picture, it might be useful to explain the page and description (1) where it came from and (2) if you are the copyright holder. If you are not, you should either explain (and link to "proof") that the paper is under a open access/free culture license or include a note or reference to the fact that you have permission from the copyright holder. You can take a look at Wikimedia Commons licensing policy] for a good example of something we might want to follow.
- Yes, this is a good thing to think about.
- These images are appropriate under Fair use (small part of the entire article, and is used for educational purposes, the images are not available commercially, as single entities). I don't see this as a copyright problem.
- However, it is a free culture opportunity. I would support creation of a policy and templates. For instance, we could create templates to indicate the copyright status of each image, and to encourage the remaking of images. (The image that you point to could certain be remade, but I don't have appropriate tools to do that quickly. I generally don't have time or patience for remaking images; I'd welcome others doing that!)
- Wikimedia Commons is designed as a general source for free images; that's quite useful, but I don't think that's our goal. It may also be worth looking at Wikipedia, which takes a far less constraining view.
On Wikipedia, there are non-free images, used in the context of a particular article.
- Under Wikipedia's Fair Use policy, a copyright tag and non-free use rationale would be needed; those seem like good habits. The image that you point to would probably be recreated under the question "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" Jodi.a.schneider 09:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think this we should rely on fair use unless we absolutely have to.
- Including non-free content when it's not absolutely necessary complicates the licensing of content on AW and makes AW less free. In Wikipedia, this is acceptable because there are things like album covers, corporate logos, and other content which can not be replaced and which is necessary for a good encyclopedic article. I am very familiar with Wikipedia's policy toward non-free content and have uploaded quite a bit of content to WP under those terms (and some deleted!). I don't think they apply to any of the figures in question or anything on AW at the moment.
- What is fair use for AW (as a non-profit) may not be fair use for someone who wanted to re-use AW content by printing it in books, course-guides, or other places in ways they could otherwise do under our license. We want our content to be reused in those places and this will, at the very least, create uncertainty, extra work, or a barrier to doing so.
- Fair use is US-specific (there are international analogs many places) and can internationalize awkwardly.
- Reproducing the content in question is not only possible, but reasonably easy, as you point out.
- Finally, we should look more to groups like OCW rather than Wikipedia which is more similar. OCW will blur out and remove figures and tables in slides in the background of lecture videos and spends huge amount of money to reproduce free version of tables and figures! I've talked to OCW people, and their lawyers, and understand that they have not entered into this decision lightly.
- Lawyers have argued that academic, non-profit, reproduction of full abstracts is fair use! If our goal was to take a stand for strong fair use of existing content, we wouldn't be bothering with republishing summaries. Let's take a strong position in favor of creating unambiguously freely licensed content. Indeed, that seems to be the whole point. —mako๛ 15:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Abstracts are not summaries, and fair use is part of the point for me. So I disagree with the overall argument that you are making. But you're right: for widescale reuse of AcaWiki, uniform licensing would be easier (motivated in part by http://scienceblogs.com/commonknowledge/2010/06/open_data_and_creative_commons.php ). There's a tension between ease of reuse and ease of creation/ingest. The notion of blurring out content and removing figures and tables in slides feels wrong to me, while I understand the point behind it for OCW, it strikes me as censorship by licensing. How is this different from asking reusers to replace images with [file redacted] or something similar?
- Regarding this point:
- Reproducing the content in question is not only possible, but reasonably easy, as you point out.
- I point out that it would be reasonably easy in theory--for someone who knew what they were doing and had the right tools--at the same time as I explain that that's NOT at all easy for me at the moment. Also, beware of generalizing from this one example. It would require a review of all the images in the File space to understand whether they're all as easy to reproduce as this one. Screenshots of prototype systems, results of queries--these are not so easy to reproduce.
- Right now I see three pillars for images on AcaWiki:
- Rhetorical expression of the point to be made
- Appropriate licensing (fair use, free license, etc)
- Balance ease for the summarizer and ease for the reuser
- I'll keep thinking about this, and I think a wider discussion on the mailing list would be beneficial. Jodi.a.schneider 17:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Here's a summary of Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups -- the paper on collective intelligence published in Science a couple months ago. —mako๛ 18:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Empty lit review
Hi, I think Literature Review:Smoking Cessation among Male Smokers in Saudi Arabia should be deleted; its inflating the litreview stats and I doubt anyone is going to pick up the challenge to complete this page. It looks bad if one of the three litreviews has been empty since 2009. Jayvdb 05:06, 31 August 2012 (CEST)