Difference between revisions of "User:Econterms/Lightning talk"

From WikiConference North America
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(outline of talk)
 
(this was from 2014)
 
(10 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
  +
I presented this lightning talk at WikiConference USA 2014.
   
 
= Tracking relations between scientific works, such as disputes =
  
= Tracking relations between scientific works, such as disputes =
  +
* Prof. Yang tells us that students have trouble interpreting a dynamic immunology literature which includes published papers whose findings are wrong or irrelevant.
  +
* Let's imagine a wiki platform that made the state of research in a science more clear.
  +
* Here's a feature it could have.
   
 
Examples:
 
Examples:
 
* [http://acawiki.org/Does_High_Public_Debt_Consistently_Stifle_Economic_Growth%3F_A_Critique_of_Reinhart_and_Rogoff On how much government debt stifles economic growth]
  
* [http://acawiki.org/Does_High_Public_Debt_Consistently_Stifle_Economic_Growth%3F_A_Critique_of_Reinhart_and_Rogoff On how much government debt stifles economic growth]
−
* [http://acawiki.org/A_diffusible_lymphokine_produced_by_CD8%2B_T_lymphocytes Claim about immune response to HIV]
 +
* [http://acawiki.org/A_diffusible_lymphokine_produced_by_CD8%2B_T_lymphocytes Claim about immune response to HIV] ; [http://acawiki.org/Efficient_lysis_of_human_immunodeficiency_virus_type_1-infected_cells_by_cytotoxic_T_lymphocytes Later paper with different view]
  +
  +
* AcaWiki has 1100 academic summaries. Our prototype is there.
  +
* See first two examples
  +
* Substantive comment is formalized: A disputes B (using Semantic MediaWiki)
  +
:* note: the platform doesn't generally resolve claims or disputes ; it's finding a shallower kind of Truth -- that a dispute exists
  +
* Similarly could incorporate other '''relations between scientific works''': A '''cites''' B ; A is an '''important predecessor to''' B ; A and B '''use the same data set''' or the same clinical trial information ; A '''reproduced''' or '''could not reproduce''' result from B
  +
  +
* Could '''scale this up''' with big lists of relevant papers and works from many places including PubMed, SSRN, and Wikidata
  +
:The list is not an innovation but the relations between the works can be useful if they are formalized a bit
  +
  +
* Trees of relationships can then be made visible ; could give a '''picture of a dynamic literature''' across fields, journals, and languages
  +
* Could be useful for:
  +
# students of this research . . . and . . .
  +
# researchers not at a "central" place that is well-connected to the latest news (global South?) . . . and . . .
  +
# grant-givers (?) . . . and . . .
  +
# somebody with some '''other expertise''' (or technology or skill) that helps to address a particular issue
  +
: Opportunities are rare if subfield has knowledge & institutional barriers around it.
  +
: ===> A good site could save time for scientists and bring in more scientists ===> speed science along
  +
 
* [http://acawiki.org/Report_on_disputed_scientific_claims_within_AcaWiki Report on disputes between papers on this site]
  
* [http://acawiki.org/Report_on_disputed_scientific_claims_within_AcaWiki Report on disputes between papers on this site]
  +
* issue: who is qualified to make commentary & identify disputes on such a wiki? (to be worked out)
  +
  +
We need more people and ideas of what a wiki with scientific lit could have that would help spark critical mass (fun, addictive?)
  +
  +
Sources:
  +
* developed with Lane Rasberry (WM NYC), Otto Yang (UCLA medicine), others
  +
* drawing from Yaron Koren's discoursedb.org ; Retraction Watch blog; many other sites

Latest revision as of 04:14, 2 August 2015

I presented this lightning talk at WikiConference USA 2014.

Tracking relations between scientific works, such as disputes

  • Prof. Yang tells us that students have trouble interpreting a dynamic immunology literature which includes published papers whose findings are wrong or irrelevant.
  • Let's imagine a wiki platform that made the state of research in a science more clear.
  • Here's a feature it could have.

Examples:

  • AcaWiki has 1100 academic summaries. Our prototype is there.
  • See first two examples
  • Substantive comment is formalized: A disputes B (using Semantic MediaWiki)
  • note: the platform doesn't generally resolve claims or disputes ; it's finding a shallower kind of Truth -- that a dispute exists
  • Similarly could incorporate other relations between scientific works: A cites B ; A is an important predecessor to B ; A and B use the same data set or the same clinical trial information ; A reproduced or could not reproduce result from B
  • Could scale this up with big lists of relevant papers and works from many places including PubMed, SSRN, and Wikidata
The list is not an innovation but the relations between the works can be useful if they are formalized a bit
  • Trees of relationships can then be made visible ; could give a picture of a dynamic literature across fields, journals, and languages
  • Could be useful for:
  1. students of this research . . . and . . .
  2. researchers not at a "central" place that is well-connected to the latest news (global South?) . . . and . . .
  3. grant-givers (?) . . . and . . .
  4. somebody with some other expertise (or technology or skill) that helps to address a particular issue
Opportunities are rare if subfield has knowledge & institutional barriers around it.
===> A good site could save time for scientists and bring in more scientists ===> speed science along

We need more people and ideas of what a wiki with scientific lit could have that would help spark critical mass (fun, addictive?)

Sources:

  • developed with Lane Rasberry (WM NYC), Otto Yang (UCLA medicine), others
  • drawing from Yaron Koren's discoursedb.org ; Retraction Watch blog; many other sites
Retrieved from "https://wikiconference.org/index.php?title=User:Econterms/Lightning_talk&oldid=1646"