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

From WikiConference North America
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(outline of talk)
 
(text of talk)
Line 6: Line 6:
 
* [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/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]
  +
  +
  +
* Prof. Yang says: students have trouble interpreting a dynamic literature which includes published papers whose findings are wrong or irrelevant.
  +
* We are imagining a wiki platform that made the state of the science more clear.
  +
  +
* acawiki has academic summaries. it's not ours, it's a place for this particular experiment.
  +
* See first two examples (which use Semantic MediaWiki)
  +
* Substantive comment is formalized: A disputes B
  +
* 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
  +
* note that the platform doesn't generally resolve claims or disputes ; it's finding a shallower kind of Truth
  +
  +
* 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 literature'''
  +
* Useful for:
  +
# those new to this research (e.g. students) or
  +
# researchers not at a "central" place where people hear the latest stuff, e.g. in the global south who aren't as well connected to the very latest news
  +
# somebody coming in from some other expertise who doesn't actually understand it all but has a technology or a skill that helps to address the specific question of fact. That happens all the time but it happens less if each subfield has knowledge barriers around it. We can help it happen more.
  +
  +
* on such a wiki, who is qualified to make commentary & identify disputes?
  +
  +
* developed with Lane Rasberry (WM NYC), Otto Yang (UCLA medicine), others
  +
* drawing from Yaron Koren's discoursedb.org ; Retraction Watch blog; other sites
  +
  +
* would like to work with more people and get more ideas of what a platform like that should have in it

Revision as of 13:31, 1 June 2014

Tracking relations between scientific works, such as disputes

Examples:


  • Prof. Yang says: students have trouble interpreting a dynamic literature which includes published papers whose findings are wrong or irrelevant.
  • We are imagining a wiki platform that made the state of the science more clear.
  • acawiki has academic summaries. it's not ours, it's a place for this particular experiment.
  • See first two examples (which use Semantic MediaWiki)
  • Substantive comment is formalized: A disputes B
  • 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
  • note that the platform doesn't generally resolve claims or disputes ; it's finding a shallower kind of Truth
  • 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 literature
  • Useful for:
  1. those new to this research (e.g. students) or
  2. researchers not at a "central" place where people hear the latest stuff, e.g. in the global south who aren't as well connected to the very latest news
  3. somebody coming in from some other expertise who doesn't actually understand it all but has a technology or a skill that helps to address the specific question of fact. That happens all the time but it happens less if each subfield has knowledge barriers around it. We can help it happen more.
  • on such a wiki, who is qualified to make commentary & identify disputes?
  • developed with Lane Rasberry (WM NYC), Otto Yang (UCLA medicine), others
  • drawing from Yaron Koren's discoursedb.org ; Retraction Watch blog; other sites
  • would like to work with more people and get more ideas of what a platform like that should have in it
Retrieved from "https://wikiconference.org/index.php?title=User:Econterms/Lightning_talk&oldid=895"