116 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
    1. online knowledge construction

      Knowledge construction is a key concept.

    2. hierarchical content management system

      Wikipedia tiene un sistema de gestión jerárquico de contenido.

    3. Wikipedia and the Neutrality Principle

      Capítulo de libro, por José van Dijck

    1. This suggests that conflictual games’moving-on does not rely on sustainedconversations (because participants disagree anyway) but relies on convincing the auth-ority.

      One with power and others trying to convince him/her and that's it.

    2. Because ofthis inability to change the rules, debates thus centre on two other areas: the interpretationof these rules and the discovery of evidence to satisfy (e.g., notability) criteria.

      Lo que se juega en la discusión.

    3. The consultation/enforcement mode suggests the pragmatic side of a game in which theactual manifestation as a site of independent yet transparent lobbying efforts, deviatesfrom its original setup as a site of discussion.

      How consultation/enforcement works

    4. Because closing admins are not bound to appeal to the majority, they havethe power to decide regardless of how many deleters or retainers incidentally

      Como si fuera mucho poder en unas pocas manos.

    5. In the discussion game, editors par-ticipate in AfD discussions in a way that is similar to other online asynchronous chats(although lonely“discussions”with only one comment are also common)

      How discussion works

    6. Thisalso shows a practical side to AfD discussions—the aim is not so much about convincingothers. It is about convincing the authority.

      Una de mis hipótesis es que es la comunidad quien debate y el bibliotecario (administrador) quien ejecuta. Esto podría rebatir esa hipótesis.

    7. A keydifference here with casual synchronous chats is that AfD is confrontational:

      Like "one side against others"

    8. The problem is that WP:AIRCRASH is an“advice on article content,”52not a guideline.

      Claro, aquí lo dicen:This page is an essay on article content. It contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how the content policies may be interpreted within their area of interest.

      This WikiProject advice page is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.

    9. two language games—consultation/enforcement and discussion

      Language games

    10. Also, some“dis-cussions”are not interactive—in the case when participants are all talking to the closingadmin rather than to each other

      Sounds like there are no discussion

    11. frame discussions

      What if the frame is more flexible? That can decide the future of the whole article.

    12. cascading arguments,

      Esto me parece muy fuerte.

    13. But manyfirst movers are more aggressive

      Aggresive == male?

    14. Based mostly on signals, thisfirst move thus sounds personal rather than analytical.This is in line with Wikipedia’s spirit—consensus—but is also problematic on behalf ofCassidy03’s deletion cause.

      "...sounds personal rather than analytical". That's very interesting because it's a subjective argument.

    15. A deleter can start with a short comment

      Short comment for a first move

    16. inFigure 1.

      En los validadores externos se puede ver lo que julio me sugirió: buscamos referentes en una sociedad que históricamente no ha documentado las obras y vidas de las mujeres, por lo tanto ¿cómo vamos a reflejarlo en la enciclopedia?

    17. Here,“institutionalized rules”refers to the citation of Wikipedia rules to establish legiti-macy.

      Explicación de cada uno de las 4 categorías.

    18. Free style operationalization

      Me gusta como presenta las premisas a analizar en el párrafo siguiente: 5a es una premisa, 5b es la siguiente y 5c la conclusión.

    19. 1a] PerWP:NEO; this

      El enlace está roto, aquí el enlace correcto.

    20. Thefirst phase revealed four broad categories of discursive resources that editors oftenuse: institutionalized rules (Wikipedia policies/guidelines), external validators, free styleoperationalization, and signals

      Estos podrían ser los motivos a los que se refiere Núria.

    21. Data from the AfD discussion pages was collected from June 1, 2013 to June 21, 2013 (thefirst phase)

      Recolecta dicsuciones de artículos de borrado en 20 días.

    22. My analysis will adopt part of this critical orientation by focusingon thepower relationsbetween editors in their choice of utterance during AfD discussions.

      Analiza las relaciones de poder. Creo que pronto llegaré a Foucault.

    23. My method of choice is discourse analysis

      Methodology: discourse analysis.

    24. For the purpose of differentiation, I shall call thepersons of the actdeletersandretainers

      Definición de las corrientes de bibliotecarios en Wikipedia

    25. Previousstudies of Wikipedia’s article deletion processes have shown that the lack of indicationof importance alone is the most important commonly used criterion for speedyCOMMUNICATION AND CRITICAL/CULTURAL STUDIES307

      La falta de importancia es el criterio de borrado rápido por excelencia.

    26. Finally, AfD discussions are conflictual.

      Las discusiones de los artículos para borrado son conflictivos

    27. Second,none of its participants can be certain as to what the rules of each languagegame are

      Reglas del juego del lenguaje

    28. First, thereisnoclearboundaryastowhoisaninsiderandwhoisanoutsiderand,ifthereisaboundary, there is high mobility between the inside and the outside (and vice versa)

      Adentro y afuera de Wikipedia

    1. The first two pairs (New Orleans and Dhaka, Metro Manila and Medellin) unpack the inequitable impacts of specific infrastructure and spatial planning interventions.

      Medellín attack the problem using infrastructures and spacial planning intervention (top-down decisions).

    2. two pairs (Santiago and Jakarta, Boston and Surat) highlight procedural equity implications of decision-making approaches that exclude the poor or rely on private sector action

      This group attack the problem analyzing the decision making process (down-top, or at least giving more tools to under represented groups).

    3. Future adaptation plans must critically considerthe distribution of adaptation benefits, costs, and responsibilities across society, address unsustainable and inequitable development patterns, and apply interventions that – at a minimum – treat groups equally regardless of socio-economic status or – better yet – actively prioritize beneficial outcomes for disadvantaged and vulnerable groups

      I think there is a challenge here: how can the disadvantaged and vulnerable groups (under represented) have a sit in the table if those who choose the decision makers are not the under represented?

    4. However, privatization of responsibilities is also incentivizingrent-seeking behavior over the city’s infrastructure and public services. Their experiences showthat institutionalization of adaptation through public-private partnerships or private networks can sometimes yield exclusionary behaviors

      At the end: exclusionary behaviors

    5. Participation and inclusion of the most marginalized remain peripheral to adaptation planning

      At the end there is a lot to do with under-represented communities.

    6. Equity Impacts of Urban Land Use Planning forClimate Adaptation

      Lectura para el seminario, presentada por Kaitlin Strange.

    1. A given variable can sornetimes be measured at different levels. When in doubt, researchers should use the highest leve! of rneasurement ap-propriate to that variable so they can capture the greatest amount of information.

      Variable

    2. The Importance of Variable Names

      Variables

    3. Conceptions, Concepts, and Reality

      Defining concepts

    1. Checklist: Theoretical Framework

      Use this checklist with your theoretical framework.

    2. Concepts often have multiple definitions, so the theoretical framework involves clearly defining what you mean by each term

      It's to know exactly what we mean using a specific concept.

    3. In your thesis or dissertation, the theoretical framework is where you define, discuss and evaluate theories relevant to your research problem.

      It's a place for definitions, right?

  2. Nov 2019
    1. I will conceptualize Wikipedia editors’online exchanges as amovein a“language game,”acentral concept of Wittgenstein’s view on language as social actions

      Concepto: Editor (bibliotecario) de Wikipedia. Movimiento en el concepto de lenguaje como acción social de Wittgenstein.

    2. As we shall see, much of the debate centres onthe interpretation of the“notability guideline”(WP:Notability),20which decideswhether topics should be included in this gigantic encyclopedia

      Claro, la interpretación e lo que significa "notoriedad" puede ser muy subjetiva.

    3. We have movedaway from mass reception to a supposed age of microinteractions and reinstitutionaliza-tion of civil space.

      Microinteracciones y espacio civil.

    4. Editors of newspapers and magazines constantly engage in the selection and silencing ofinformation in terms of choosing what to publish. This, in effect, sets a boundary betweenknowledge and“nonknowledge

      Establecimiento de jerarquías.

    5. Negotiating boundaries of knowledge: Discourseanalysis of Wikipedia's Articles for Deletion (AfD)discussion

      Sobre la toma de decisiones de borrado en Wikipedia.

    1. Internet, escola i comunitat en el trànsit cap a la societat xarxa. La incorporació d’internet al sistema educatiu de Catalunya per al desenvolupament comunitari Meneses Naranjo, Julio

      La tesis de Julio

    1. Towards a personalised virtual library: Indications from navigational and personal information behaviour of e-learning students Ferran i Ferrer, Núria

      La tesis de Núria. Su director es Mario Pérez-Montoro Gutiérrez.

    1. The illustrated guide to a Ph.D

      Un regalo de Julio sobre lo que implica hacer un doctorado.

    1. Usuario:Platonides/Encarta/Artículos

      Este usuario incluye los artículos de la Enciclopedia Encarta que se propone incluir en Wikipedia. En el listado de paso podría verse el balance de género que pueda tener la Encarta.

    1. En este enlace de Google Scholar se puede ver quien cita el artículo y llegar a más fuentes.

    2. Deletion discussions in Wikipedia: decision factors and outcomes

      Artículo del 2012 sobre discusiones de borrado en Wikipedia. El PDF no puede ser comentadio con Hypothesis :-(

    1. Mercedes del Carmen Guillén Vicente

      Este artículo se sometió dos veces a borrado. Al final quedó publicado.

    2. Wikipedia:Consultas de borrado/Mercedes del Carmen Guillén Vicente

      Ejemplo de una discusión sobre el borrado de un artículo de una mujer.

    1. Personas por sexo‎

      Categoría que contiene las categorías de géneros en Wikipedia en castellano.

    2. Mujeres‎ (10 cat, 73348 págs.)

      Aquí se pueden revisar cuántos artículos hay en la categoría de acuerdo al género.

    1. Este es argumento falaz denominado generalización apresurada. La relevancia enciclopédica de cada artículo debe discutirse per se, es decir, por sí mismo. Exceptuando analogías obvias cada hecho, objeto o personaje tiene su propia trascendencia y debe ser analizado por ella, no por la de otro o por la de la del género al que pertenece.

      Sobre los argumentos de borrado y el género.

  3. Oct 2019
    1. Conceptualization is the process of specifying observations and measurements that give concepts definite meaning for the purposes of a research study.

      What is conceptualization? The way to give meaning to a concept for the ressearch.

    2. Concepts are constructs; they represent the agreed-on meanings we assign to terms

      Concepts represent agreements

    3. Concepts are mental irnages we use as sumrnary devices for bringing together observations and experiences that seem to have something in corn-mon. We use terms or labels to reference these concepts

      What is a concept? Mental images.

    4. Conceptualization, Operationalization, and Measurement

      Conceptualization, Operationalization, and Measurement: an essencial part of this process involves transforming the relatively vague terms of ordinary language into precise objects of study with wel-defined and measurable meanings

    1. Do not use obviously feminine names, such as SuzyQ or Pam I Am. Do not use feminine titles like Miss, Ms, or Mrs. Do not incorporate hobbies, interests, family status, religious affiliation, etc. For example, Knit Nut, Fairly Feminist, and Lovemykids are not the best usernames if you want to avoid Wikipedia gender-based harassment.

      Esto podría sugerir que hay que "camuflar" el género en Wikipedia para que sea más fácil ser aceptado en la comunidad y que las ediciones se mantengan. Si bien no es explícito, podría sugerir que la ambigüedad es un factor para no ser eliminado o que hay que aparentar no ser mujer.

    1. It is generally agreed that literature surveys and descriptive compilations do not meet the contribution-to-knowledge re-quirement for the dissertation

      What is not accepted.

    2. Positivist versus postpositivist.

      My research is postpositivist

    3. Experimental versus descriptive.

      My research is going to be descriptive.

    4. Quantitative versus qualitative.

      My research is qualitative.

    5. NEW OR IMPROVED ANALYSIS Analysis may be based on existing evidence or include new data.

      Maybe my research leads in this way, but I think is more the previous one.

    6. The evidence may be collected by an experiment, simulation, observations, questionnaire, interviews, or measurements.

      Maybe my research goes in this way: new or improved evidence.

    7. The additive contribution of a dissertation may arise from 1. new or improved evidence; 2. new or improved methodology; 3. new or improved analysis; 4. new or improved concepts or theories.

      Four kind of contributions

    8. The dissertation should be based on a significant question, problem, or hypothesis.

      The power of a good question. That's why we need to learn how and what to ask.

    9. Different approaches to testing of important results. If a researcher has reported interesting results with one research technique and a given research population, a doctoral student may consider replicating the experiment, altering either the research technique or the research population.

      Open science and reproductible science is key here.

    10. Writers of disserta-tions commonly describe further research that needs to be done.

      Work on the results of others.

    11. If there is likely to be a continuing interest, either academically or otherwise on the topic, then a student can continué to maintin scholarly capability in the área and continué to be a significant authority on the subject.

      This is like Bret Victor's Inventing on principle and the question is: what is your principle?

    12. A research project will typicaliy have more than one potential outcome. For example, a research experiment may fail to dis-prove the nuil hypothesis, it may disprove it, or it may be incon-clusive.

      A database of unsuccessful cases is a good thing to have too.

    13. The exploratory investigation, definition of problem, and writing normally take about half of the total time.

      I can use this to measure my time.

    14. If no theory base can be identified, the topic should be rejected

      Theory is mandatory

    15. Observations lead to theory to classify, explain, and predict the observations.

      Sounds like grounded theory, or at least the prediction is something very useful.

    16. Research needed and interesting

      Why my research is needed and interesting?

    17. In reading dissertations, the student should begin to formúlate a general understanding of the structure and scope of a disserta-tion, and the meaning of contribution to knowledge as applied to doctoral dissertations.

      Structure and scope.

    18. The Selection of a Dissertation Topic

      The selection of a dissertation topic

    1. . To summarize: Your aim is to explain 1. what you are writing about —I am working on the topic of... 2. what you don't know about it—because / want tofind out... 3. why you want your reader to know and care about it—m order to help my reader understand better...

      Short and sweet.

    2. add a second indirect question that explains why you asked your first question.

      Here is the so what? in the sentence you are building.

    3. When you add that because I want tofind out how/why/whether clause, you state why you are pursuing your topic: to answer a question important to you.

      Back to the beginning: a question important to you.

    4. because I want to find out who/what/when/where/whether/ why/how .

      This is the flavour: the indirect question.

    5. start by naming your project:

      Put a name to that baby.

    6. SO WHAT?

      Miles Davis was right.

    7. If you are an experienced researcher, look for questions that other researchers ask but don't answer.

      Remember: the idea is to make it interesting. It can lead you where nobody else knows.

    8. How does your topic fit into the context of a larger structure or function as part of a larger system?

      Structure and composition.

    9. Ask about the History of Your Topic

      History of the topic

    10. So the best way to begin working on your focused topic is not to find all the information you can on it, but to formúlate questions that direct you to just that information you need to answer them

      What is my question to find information?

    11. If a writer asks no specific question worth asking, he can offer no specific answer worth supporting.

      The power of the questions.

    12. Caution: Don't narrow your topic so much that you can't find information on it

      Where to stop while you are narrowing.

    13. We narrowed those topics by adding words and phrases, but of a special kind: conflict, description, contribution, and developing. Those nouns are derived from verbs expressing actions or relation-ships: to conflict, to describe, to contribute, and to develop. Lacking such "action" words, your topic is a .static thing.

      Be careful: you need words that describes actions.

    14. A topic is probably too broad if you can state it in four or five words

      How to narrow a topic.

    15. Few experi-enced researchers trust Wikipedia, so under no circumstances cite it as a source of evidence (unless your topic is Wikipedia itself).

      Lucky me! I can cite Wikipedia.

    16. Google your topic,

      Or use DuckDuckGo if you care about your privacy.

    17. Once you have a list of topics, choose the one or two that inter-est you most and explore their research potential. Do this:

      Choose one or two topics.

    18. Start by listing as many interests as you can that you'd like to explore.

      Make a list

    19. But also ask yourself: What interests me about this tapie? What would interest others?

      I should answer this questions.

    20. Some questions raise problems; others do not.

      Question and problems are not the same.

    21. But other questions may intrigue only the researcher:

      Write an interesting question is key.

    22. A subject is a broad área of knowledge (e.g., climate change), while a topic is a specific interest within that área (e.g., the effect of climate change on migratory birds).

      The hierarchy is:

      • Subject
        • Topic
    23. As you begin a research project, you will want to distinguish a topic from a sub-ject.

      There is a difference between topic and subject.

    24. From Topics to Questions

      Lectura de Research Design in Social Sciences (GH)

  4. Sep 2019