In-Defense-Of-Inclusionism (Link Bibliography)

“In-Defense-Of-Inclusionism” links:

  1. Wikipedia-resume

  2. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/events/luncheon/2011/10/makohill

  3. http://www.niemanlab.org/2011/10/the-contribution-conundrum-why-did-wikipedia-succeed-while-other-encyclopedias-failed/

  4. http://robotics.cs.tamu.edu/dshell/cs689/papers/anderson72more_is_different.pdf

  5. https://www.amazon.com/Art-Doing-Science-Engineering-Learning/dp/9056995014/

  6. https://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/04/less-wrong-progress-report.html

  7. https://www.lesswrong.com/

  8. https://www.overcomingbias.com/

  9. ⁠, Scott Alexander (2009-05-06):

    The Great Firewall of China. A massive system of centralized censorship purging the Chinese version of the Internet of all potentially subversive content. Generally agreed to be a great technical achievement and political success even by the vast majority of people who find it morally abhorrent. I spent a few days in China. I got around it at the Internet cafe by using a free online proxy. Actual Chinese people have dozens of ways of getting around it with a minimum of technical knowledge or just the ability to read some instructions.

    The Chinese government isn’t losing any sleep over this (although they also don’t lose any sleep over murdering political dissidents, so maybe they’re just very sound sleepers). Their theory is that by making it a little inconvenient and time-consuming to view subversive sites, they will discourage casual exploration. No one will bother to circumvent it unless they already seriously distrust the Chinese government and are specifically looking for foreign websites, and these people probably know what the foreign websites are going to say anyway.

    Think about this for a second. The human longing for freedom of information is a terrible and wonderful thing. It delineates a pivotal difference between mental emancipation and slavery. It has launched protests, rebellions, and revolutions. Thousands have devoted their lives to it, thousands of others have even died for it. And it can be stopped dead in its tracks by requiring people to search for “how to set up proxy” before viewing their anti-government website.

    …But these trivial inconveniences have major policy implications. Countries like China that want to oppress their citizens are already using “soft” oppression to make it annoyingly difficult to access subversive information. But there are also benefits for governments that want to help their citizens.

  10. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/reitXJgJXFzKpdKyd/beware-trivial-inconveniencesbj6

  11. https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=law_lib_artchop

  12. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18516/

  13. ⁠, Gunther Eysenbach (2006-03-15):

    Open access (OA) to the research literature has the potential to accelerate recognition and dissemination of research findings, but its actual effects are controversial. This was a longitudinal bibliometric analysis of a cohort of OA and non-OA articles published between June 8, 2004, and December 20, 2004, in the same journal (PNAS: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences). Article characteristics were extracted, and citation data were compared between the two groups at three different points in time: at “quasi-baseline” (December 2004, 0–6 mo after publication), in April 2005 (4–10 mo after publication), and in October 2005 (10–16 mo after publication). Potentially variables, including number of authors, authors’ lifetime publication count and impact, submission track, country of corresponding author, funding organization, and discipline, were adjusted for in logistic and linear multiple regression models. A total of 1,492 original research articles were analyzed: 212 (14.2% of all articles) were OA articles paid by the author, and 1,280 (85.8%) were non-OA articles. In April 2005 (mean 206 d after publication), 627 (49.0%) of the non-OA articles versus 78 (36.8%) of the OA articles were not cited (relative risk = 1.3 [95% Confidence Interval: 1.1–1.6]; p = 0.001). 6 mo later (mean 288 d after publication), non-OA articles were still more likely to be uncited (non-OA: 172 [13.6%], OA: 11 [5.2%]; relative risk = 2.6 [1.4–4.7]; p < 0.001). The average number of citations of OA articles was higher compared to non-OA articles (April 2005: 1.5 [SD = 2.5] versus 1.2 [SD = 2.0]; Z = 3.123; p = 0.002; October 2005: 6.4 [SD = 10.4] versus 4.5 [SD = 4.9]; Z = 4.058; p < 0.001). In a model, controlling for potential confounders, OA articles compared to non-OA articles remained twice as likely to be cited (odds ratio = 2.1 [1.5–2.9]) in the first 4–10 mo after publication (April 2005), with the odds ratio increasing to 2.9 (1.5–5.5) 10–16 mo after publication (October 2005). Articles published as an immediate OA article on the journal site have higher impact than self-archived or otherwise openly accessible OA articles. We found strong evidence that, even in a journal that is widely available in research libraries, OA articles are more immediately recognized and cited by peers than non-OA articles published in the same journal. OA is likely to benefit science by accelerating dissemination and uptake of research findings.

    A longitudinal bibliometric analysis of citations to papers published in the PNAS between June 8, 2004 and December 20, 2004 reveals that the open-access articles were more immediately recognized and cited by peers.

  14. http://ivyspring.com/steveLawrence/SteveLawrence.htm

  15. https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01948311/document

  16. 2007-craig.pdf

  17. http://www.foundersatwork.com/

  18. http://www.joelonsoftware.com/news/fog0000000162.html

  19. http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000052.html

  20. https://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/07/15/rate-this-page-is-coming-to-the-english-wikipedia/

  21. http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ConfirmEdit

  22. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deletionism

  23. http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html

  24. 2011-wikipedia-vandalreverttrendbyyear20022010.png

  25. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Vandal_fighter_work_load#Summary

  26. http://slightlynew.blogspot.com/2011/05/who-writes-wikipedia-information.html

  27. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Patroller_work_load

  28. http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/wikigroaning.php

  29. http://interviews.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/28/1351230

  30. https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-July/093026.html

  31. http://wikistics.falsikon.de/latest/wikipedia/en/

  32. https://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20100611183353/http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1765/1645

  33. http://informationr.net/ir/16-2/paper476.html

  34. https://web.archive.org/web/20160719125920/http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2007/06/28/wikipedia-plateau/

  35. 2009-ortega.pdf

  36. http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/11/26/wikipedias-volunteer-story/

  37. http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Editor_Trends_Study/Results#Cohort_Analysis

  38. http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/March_2011_Update#What_We.27ve_Learned

  39. http://www.kaggle.com/c/wikichallenge/Details/Background

  40. https://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904875404576532431335938862.html

  41. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=14230356

  42. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/c/ca/UK_BOARD_MEETING.pdf

  43. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gwern&diff=next&oldid=453582922

  44. ⁠, Scott Alexander (2009-04-28):

    [Alexander defines the “typical mind fallacy”: everyone reasons about their mental experiences as if they are universal. People with vivid visual imagery assume everyone can see things in “the mind’s eye” while assume that this is simply a poetic metaphor; people with color-blindness wonder why other people get so worked up about various shades of gray, and people with are puzzled by the focus on flowers etc. Further examples include maladaptive daydreaming, pain insensitivity, the prevalence of visual & auditory hallucinations in mentally-healthy individuals like ‘scintillating scotoma’, misophonia, hearing voices, inner monologues, facial self-awareness, trypophobia, Severely Deficient Autobiographical Memory, hypermnesia, ASMR, face blindness/​​​​prosospagnosia, musical anhedonia, ‘the call of the void’/​​​​intrusive thoughts, hypnagogia, the nasal dilation cycle…

    This phenomenon for visual imagery was discovered only recently by ⁠, who asked if the interminable debate between philosophers/​​​​psychologists like Berkeley or Behaviorists like Skinner, where neither could accept that there was (or was not) visual imagery, was because both were right—some people have extremely vivid mental imagery, while others have none at all. He simply circulated a survey and asked. Turned out, most people do but some don’t.

    The typical mind fallacy may explain many interpersonal conflicts and differences in advice: we underappreciate the sheer cognitive diversity of mankind, because we only have access to our limited personal anecdote, and people typically do not discuss all their differences because they don’t realize they exist nor have a vocabulary/​​​​name.]

  45. http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/WikiLove

  46. http://blog.wikimedia.org/2010/09/15/article-feedback-pilot-edit-this-feature/

  47. http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/03/27/analysis-of-the-quality-of-newcomers-in-wikipedia-over-time/

  48. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newcomer_quality

  49. 2011-wikipedia-newbiesurvivalbysemesterrows20022010.png

  50. https://predictionbook.com/predictions/3241

  51. http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/06/28/data-competition-announcing-the-wikipedia-participation-challenge/

  52. http://www.kaggle.com/c/wikichallenge

  53. http://www.kaggle.com/c/wikichallenge/forums/t/674/sampling-approach

  54. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wiki_Participation_Challenge#Dissemination

  55. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wiki_Participation_Challenge_Ernest_Shackleton

  56. http://blog.kaggle.com/2011/10/06/like-popping-bubble-wrap/

  57. https://schoolgirlmilkycrisis.com/blog/?p=2879

  58. #the-editing-community-is-dead-who-killed-it

  59. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2011/mar/29/wikipedia-survey-academic-contributions

  60. About#long-content

  61. http://zikoblog.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/500-times-more/

  62. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/apr/08/footnotes-history-wikipedia

  63. http://stats.grok.se

  64. https://github.com/kragen/knuth-interview-2006

  65. http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~lam/papers/lam_group2010_wikipedia-group-decisions.pdf

  66. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=500&tagFilter=&title=Special:Contributions&contribs=user&target=Gwern&namespace=1&tagfilter=&year=2008&month=1

  67. #anime-edits

  68. #non-anime-edits

  69. #analysis-script

  70. #krebmarkt

  71. http://www.davemckay.co.uk/philosophy/nietzsche/nietzsche.php?name=nietzsche.1878.humanalltoohuman.zimmern.11

  72. http://smena-online.ru/sites/default/files/u7/group282-priedhorsky.pdf

  73. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/11878423.pdf

  74. http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~fviegas/papers/history_flow.pdf

  75. http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1963&context=cis_reports

  76. http://pensivepuffin.com/dwmcphd/syllabi/info447_wi14/readings/07-WikipediaTrust/javanmardi-TrustInWikipedia.CollaborateCon2009.pdf

  77. http://www.kittur.org/files/Kittur_2007_Wikipedia_CHI.pdf

  78. https://predictionbook.com/predictions/6586

  79. https://predictionbook.com/predictions/6585

  80. #link-removals

  81. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2012-May/110269.html

  82. http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.english/110790

  83. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=493017071

  84. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/deletionism

  85. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/structurism

  86. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/mergism

  87. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/exclusionism

  88. https://web.archive.org/web/20120519223823/http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A-WikiEN-l-Digest%2C-Vol-106%2C-Issue-7-p33873104.html

  89. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&user=&page=Gernot+Pfl%C3%BCger&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=

  90. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Faye_Wong&diff=next&oldid=487859138

  91. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ann_Devroy&diff=next&oldid=489015693

  92. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Frederick_Peel_Rawlinson&diff=next&oldid=489169129

  93. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=binomial+distribution+confidence+interval&f1=0.99&f=BinomialInterval.c_0.99&f2=100&f=BinomialInterval.n_100&f3=0.03&x=2&y=3&f=BinomialInterval.phat_0.03&a=*FVarOpt.1-_***BinomialInterval.phat--.***BinomialInterval.x---.*--

  94. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Castell_Dinas_Bran&diff=495191330&oldid=495167821

  95. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Protector_%282009_film%29&diff=next&oldid=498072054

  96. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Osprey_Publishing&diff=next&oldid=495167933

  97. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marilyn_vos_Savant&diff=next&oldid=495167982

  98. http://stats.grok.se/en/top

  99. http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Talk:Anime

  100. http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Anime

  101. http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Talk%3ABarack_Obama

  102. http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Barack%20Obama

  103. http://dumps.wikimedia.org/other/pagecounts-raw/2011/2011-09/

  104. DNB-FAQ

  105. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=N-back&action=historysubmit&diff=475881145&oldid=460758154

  106. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AN-back&action=historysubmit&diff=475881107&oldid=446631582

  107. https://predictionbook.com/predictions/5751

  108. https://predictionbook.com/predictions/5752

  109. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=N-back&diff=493522979&oldid=488321715

  110. 2012-gwern-dnbfaqwikipedia.pdf

  111. 2012-gwern-dnb-wikipedia-before.pdf

  112. 2012-gwern-dnb-wikipedia-before.csv

  113. 2012-gwern-dnb-wikipedia-after.pdf

  114. 2012-gwern-dnb-wikipedia-after.csv

  115. http://stats.grok.se/en/201204/dual%20n-back

  116. #stats-grok-se-script

  117. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Inclusionism

  118. http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/31/0328239

  119. http://www.massively.com/2009/01/06/mud-history-dissolving-into-the-waters-of-time/

  120. https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/brain-diving/2011-08-09

  121. https://www.amazon.com/Gathering-Spirits-Japans-Tradition-Folklore/dp/1462029426/

  122. https://www.amazon.com/Anime-Explosion-What-Japanese-Animation/dp/1880656728/

  123. https://web.archive.org/web/20160901182044/http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2007/07/10/unwanted-new-articles-in-wikipedia/

  124. https://web.archive.org/web/20160901182044/http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2007/07/10/unwanted-new-articles-in-wikipedia/#comment-53638

  125. http://original-research.blogspot.com/2007/07/i-found-myself-experiencing-ugly-side.html

  126. https://web.archive.org/web/20160901182044/http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2007/07/10/unwanted-new-articles-in-wikipedia/#comment-53809

  127. https://web.archive.org/web/20160901182044/http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2007/07/10/unwanted-new-articles-in-wikipedia/#comment-56035

  128. 2011-oneill.pdf

  129. http://www.thoughtcrumbs.com/publications/chi1364-burke.pdf

  130. http://www.networkcultures.org/_uploads/%237reader_Wikipedia.pdf

  131. ⁠, Stefan Thurner, Michel Szell, Roberta Sinatra (2011-07-02):

    We study behavioral action sequences of players in a massive multiplayer online game. In their virtual life players use eight basic actions which allow them to interact with each other. These actions are communication, trade, establishing or breaking friendships and enmities, attack, and punishment. We measure the probabilities for these actions conditional on previous taken and received actions and find a dramatic increase of negative behavior immediately after receiving negative actions. Similarly, positive behavior is intensified by receiving positive actions. We observe a tendency towards anti-persistence in communication sequences. Classifying actions as positive (good) and negative (bad) allows us to define binary ‘world lines’ of lives of individuals. Positive and negative actions are persistent and occur in clusters, indicated by large scaling exponents alpha 0.87 of the mean square displacement of the world lines. For all eight action types we find strong signs for high levels of repetitiveness, especially for negative actions. We partition behavioral sequences into segments of length n (behavioral ‘words’ and ‘motifs’) and study their statistical properties. We find two approximate power laws in the word ranking distribution, one with an exponent of kappa-1 for the ranks up to 100, and another with a lower exponent for higher ranks. The Shannon n-tuple redundancy yields large values and increases in terms of word length, further underscoring the non-trivial statistical properties of behavioral sequences. On the collective, societal level the timeseries of particular actions per day can be understood by a simple mean-reverting log-normal model.

  132. https://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26967/

  133. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lightsaber_combat&oldid=218546245

  134. http://xkcd.com/386/

  135. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZQG9cwKbct2LtmL3p/evaporative-cooling-of-group-beliefs

  136. https://www.amazon.com/Novel-American-Literature-Dalkey-Archive/dp/1564783626/

  137. http://stats.grok.se/

  138. https://training.kalzumeus.com/newsletters/archive/do-not-end-the-week-with-nothing

  139. 2005-shirky-agroupisitsownworstenemy.pdf: ⁠, Clay Shirky (2005-01-01; technology):

    …We had new applications like the Web, email, instant messaging, and bulletin boards, all of which were about humans communicating with one another through software. Now, suddenly, when you create software, it isn’t sufficient to think about making it possible to communicate; you have to think about making communication socially successful. In the age of usability, technical design decisions had to be taken to make software easier for a mass audience to use; in the age of social software, design decisions must be taken to make social groups survive and thrive and meet the goals of the group even when they contradict the goals of the individual. A discussion group designed by a usability expert might be optimized to make it easy to post spam about Viagra. But in social software design it’s pretty obvious that the goal is to make certain things harder, not easier, and if you can make it downright impossible to post spam, you’ve done your job. Features need to be designed to make the group successful, not the individual.

    Today, hardly anybody really studies how to design software for human-to-human interaction. The field of social software design is in its infancy. In fact, we’re not even at the point yet where the software developers developing social software realize that they need to think about the sociology and the anthropology of the group that will be using their software, so many of them just throw things together and allow themselves to be surprised by the social interactions that develop around their software. Clay Shirky has been a pioneer in this field, and his talk “A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy” will be remembered as a watershed in the widespread realization that in this new era, sociology and anthropology are just as crucial to software design as usability was in the last. —Joel Spolsky


    People who work on social software are closer in spirit to economists and political scientists than they are to people making compilers. They both look like programming, but when you’re dealing with groups of people as one of your run-time phenomena, that is an incredibly different practice. In the political realm, we would call these kinds of crises a constitutional crisis. It’s what happens when the tension between the individual and the group, and the rights and responsibilities of individuals and groups, gets so serious that something has to be done. And the worst crisis is the first crisis, because it’s not just “We need to have some rules.” It’s also “We need to have some rules for making some rules.” And this is what we see over and over again in large and long-lived social software systems. Constitutions are a necessary component of large, long-lived, heterogeneous groups. “The likelihood that any unmoderated group will eventually get into a flame-war about whether or not to have a moderator approaches one as time increases.” As a group commits to its existence as a group, and begins to think that the group is good or important, the chance that they will begin to call for additional structure, in order to defend themselves from themselves, gets very, very high.

    1. You cannot completely separate technical and social issues
    2. Members [power users] are different than users.
    3. The core group has rights that trump individual rights in some situations.

    …if you don’t accept them upfront, they’ll happen to you anyway. And then you’ll end up writing one of those documents that says “Oh, we launched this and we tried it, and then the users came along and did all these weird things. And now we’re documenting it so future ages won’t make this mistake.”

    1. …If you were going to build a piece of social software to support large and long-lived groups, what would you design for? The first thing you would design for is handles the user can invest in.
    2. you have to design a way for there to be members in good standing. Have to design some way in which good works get recognized. The minimal way is, posts appear with identity. You can do more sophisticated things like having formal karma or “member since.”
    3. Three, you need barriers to participation. This is one of the things that killed ⁠. You have to have some cost to either join or participate, if not at the lowest level, then at higher levels. There needs to be some kind of segmentation of capabilities.
    4. And, finally, you have to find a way to spare the group from scale. Scale alone kills conversations, because conversations require dense two-way conversations.
  140. https//www.edge.org/conversation/gin-television-and-cognitive-surplus

  141. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8791791

  142. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13152255

  143. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23078326

  144. http://vipulnaik.com/blog/the-great-decline-in-wikipedia-pageviews-full-version/

  145. https://meaningness.com/metablog/geeks-mops-sociopaths

  146. 2018-teblunthuis.pdf: “Revisiting ` ` The Rise and Decline'' in a Population of Peer Production Projects”⁠, Nathan TeBlunthuis, Aaron Shaw, Benjamin Mako Hill

  147. https://mako.cc/copyrighteous/revisiting-the-rise-and-decline

  148. https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/9qqds7Z3Ykd9Kdeay/should-you-donate-to-the-wikimedia-foundation

  149. http://community.haskell.org/~ndm/tagsoup/

  150. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haruhi_Suzumiya&action=historysubmit&diff=470197261&oldid=470182038