I noticed that GMail is warning about missing attachments and heard that Thunderbird does this, too, from Arber Borix, who also responded to a request for a screenshot (below). Thanks, Arber!
I tried out the beta of a new commercial tool, The Altmetric Explorer, from Altmetric.com. They are building on the success and ideas of the academic and non-profit community (but not formally associated with Altmetrics.org). The Altmetric Explorer gives overviews of articles and journals by the social media mentions. You can filter by publisher, journal, subject, source, etc. Altmetric Explore has a closed beta, but you can try the basic functionality on articles with their open tool, the PLoS Impact explorer.
Want to see which journals have improved their profile in social media or with a particular news outlet?
Their API is currently free for non-commercial use. Altmetric.com are crawling Twitter since July 2011 and focusing on papers with PubMed, arXiv, and DOI identifiers. They also get data from Facebook, Google+, and blogs, but they don’t disclose how. (I assume that blogs using ResearchBlogging code are crawled, for instance.)
- J. Priem, D. Taraborelli, P. Groth, C. Neylon (2010), Altmetrics: A manifesto, (v.1.0), 26 October 2010. http://altmetrics.org/manifesto [↩]
- “Altmetric sustains itself by selling more detailed data and analysis tools to publishers, institutions and academic societies.”, says the bookmarklet page, to explain why that is free [↩]
- ‘This quote from an editor as a condition for publication highlights the problem: “you cite Leukemia [once in 42 references]. Consequently, we kindly ask you to add references of articles published in Leukemia to your present article”’-from the abstract of Science. 2012 Feb 3;335(6068):542-3. Scientific publications. Coercive citation in academic publishing. Wilhite AW, Fong EA. summary on Science Daily. [↩]
A tabletop storytelling interface called a Narration Negotiation and Reconciliation Table allows disagreements to be visually represented:
Points of Disagreement… can be dragged onto any part of a story to explicitly denote disagreement without preventing the story from continuing.
From A Reflection on Using Technology for Reconciliation through Co-Narration (PDF) by Oliviero Stock, Massimo Zancanaro of FBK-irst, Italy and Chaya Koren, Zvi Eisikovitz, Patrice L. (Tamar) Weiss of University of Haifa, Israel. In the CHI2012 HCI for Peace workshop.
The mutltitouch table interface was tested for peace reconciliation work with Israeli-Jewish and Palestinian-Arab teen boys.
I’d love a screenshot. Quick searching turned up a project description and an (unrelated) discussion of the role of narrative in reconciliation. I excerpt:
The textbooks juxtaposed both historical narratives on the same page: on the right side of the page, the Israeli narrative began with the birth of Zionism in the 19th century; on the left, the Palestinian narrative commenced with Napolean’s plans to establish a Jewish state in Palestine. Historical events faced off like soldiers in trenches; and while students were scrutinizing their positions, they were simultaneously recongnizing their own involvement in the conflict. This, of course, was an intended pedagogical tool carefully thought out by the authors of the book.
From Political Reconciliation and Narrative Negotiation (PDF): by Nadim Khoury of the Department of Politics at the University of Virginia.
This points out the obvious: reconciliation first requires understanding and externally representing the disagreements. Rooting out the disagreement in mundane situations discussed online, and providing representations for them, are a big part of my current work.
Tags: CHI, CHI2012 workshop on HCI for Peace, disagreement, HCI, Israel, Narration Negotiation and Reconciliation Table, narrative, narrative negotation, negotation, Palestine, Points of Disagreement, reconciliation, storytelling
Posted in argumentative discussions, PhD diary | Comments (0)
“Wikipedia discussions can thus be seen as a mirror of a stream of public consciousness, where those elements which are still not part of a shared consolidated heritage are object of a continuous negotiation among different points of view.”
There is No Deadline – Time Evolution of Wikipedia Discussions. (2012) Andreas Kaltenbrunner, David Laniado. arXiv:1204.3453v1
From today’s Twitter stream, more juxtaposition:
I’m amused because Gabriela’s comment about the Limerick Tweasure Hunt could be a great reply to Laura’s Connemara marathon status update.
Long discussions cause challenges for Wikipedians. That’s great motivation from some of my work.
Such discussions can often present a challenge to the editor who steps up to close them; “no consensus” is a common outcome for convoluted debates, a lack of resolution that opens the possibility of discussion starting all over again as the same issues continue to arise.
Definitely worth trying–it focuses on your network in order to pull more interesting stuff to the fore. I put it in my bookmar bar when I first encountered it — it was briefly useful (slowed down the stream, found things that my network had heavily retweeted, making interesting suggestions of the few things I should read).
Its classification is ok — the genre classification seems decent (news/videos/pictures) — the message type classification (Question/Opinion/Notification/Check-In/How-To/etc) seems less exact, but may still be useful.
It kept suggesting the same things so I stopped checking it regularly — but I just checked it and am intrigued since they’ve added some features. In particular, they seem to be pulling out keywords (you can visualize one/all of people, topics, hashtags, message types–see screenshot). That might be especially interesting when doing exploratory searches.
There’s also a lot of customization possible — you can make your own rules for what to put in streams, and they have a wizard (screenshot below):
If there were a marketplace for sharing rules, that might be good — I’m not likely to spend time on customizing my own, so I’m just relying on the defaults (‘suggested for you’ and ‘popular’).
I’d be cautious of posting from Bottlenose without first checking the documentation — they accept posts of any length, but may also modify them (add hashtags, say).
I suppose for some people, the ability to pull in from multiple networks (for now Twitter & Facebook) could be useful, though there are lots of tools that do that.
I’d be curious to hear what other people think–have you found uses for Bottlenose?
PS-They seem to be going by klout score for invites for now; if you can’t get in that way, give me a shout (I’ve 10 invites if you want one).
I’m taking a listserv post as the source of a blog post again; channeling jrochkind I suppose.
Today I’m at the CSCW workshop on Collective Intelligence as Community Discourse and Action.
Then Simon Buckingham Shum provided mutually overlapping categories for the workshop topics:
- Empirical studies
- New Tools
- Discourse analysis
- Sociality and social networks
- Reflection and argumentation
- Crowdsourcing Dynamics
- Civic Intelligence
- Organizational Intelligence
I’m sorry that I’ll miss the World Cafe this evening (must run off for the doctoral colloqiuum). The plan is for the group to split into four topics for discussion:
- What do we already know about CI?
- Why should we care?
- What are the major obstacles?
- Tell me a CI story from the future
Twitter hashtag for the workshop is #cscw2012ci