news on an interesting ICWSM p…

 Uncategorized  Comments Off on news on an interesting ICWSM p…
Mar 252010
 

news on an interesting ICWSM paper: The Million Follower Fallacy: Audience Size Doesn’t Prove Influence on Twitter http://bit.ly/bb2gP7.

Network visualization edge bun…

 Uncategorized  Comments Off on Network visualization edge bun…
Mar 252010
 

Network visualization edge bundling demo. Maybe I enjoy it more because it’s in French. http://tulip.labri.fr/TulipDrupal/?q=node/231

@redlog haha. perhaps some gia…

 Uncategorized  Comments Off on @redlog haha. perhaps some gia…
Mar 192010
 

@redlog haha. perhaps some giant sunglasses would contribute positively to my fashion image… and yours :)?

Individual focus and knowledge contribution

 papers  Comments Off on Individual focus and knowledge contribution
Mar 192010
 

This week, First Monday published a paper that I have been working on for over two years. Whether that shows a lot of focus, or lack thereof, I’m not sure. The basic question was the following: what kinds of knowledge contributors flourish: those who focus narrowly on a few subject areas, or the polymaths who contribute to many disparate areas? I think of my PhD advisor, Bernardo Huberman, who in addition to publishing in general venues such as Nature, Science and PNAS, has published in physics, computer science, sociology, economics, etc. Anyone who knows Bernardo knows that he is not typical. So my collaborators (Xiao Wei, Jiang Yang, Kevin Nam, Sean Gerrish, Gavin Clarkson) and I had to gather some data in order to pose the question across many, many knowledge contributors. The answer?

Across a wide range of knowledge contribution media (scholarly articles, patents, Wikipedia, online Q&A forums), the more focused individuals make contributions of higher quality measured in (normalized citations, normalized citations, persistence of new words introduced, percentage of answers selected as best) respectively. In the end our R2 was rather laughable, but one wouldn’t expect focus alone to explain someone’s success, would they? And of course causality remains elusive. Do individuals who focus contribute higher quality stuff because of their focus, or do they focus on the work that has already brought the success?

Still, I found it remarkable that the same pattern emerged whether one looked at “original” contributions such as articles and patents, or smaller, not-necessarily novel ones, such as Wikipedia edits and question answering.

@yardi Once you went public, I…

 Uncategorized  Comments Off on @yardi Once you went public, I…
Mar 182010
 

@yardi Once you went public, I had to go public too. Saw your declaration of publicness on @eegilbert ‘s feed, which he showed during a talk

TR quotes TJ on his EECS class…

 Uncategorized  Comments Off on TR quotes TJ on his EECS class…
Mar 182010
 

TR quotes TJ on his EECS class @ UofM on designing apps for cars: http://www.technologyreview.com/communications/24824/page1/

Our First Monday paper on indi…

 Uncategorized  Comments Off on Our First Monday paper on indi…
Mar 172010
 

Our First Monday paper on individual focus & knowledge contribution http://bit.ly/9DSr1m. More focus <-> a bit higher Wikipedia etc. quality

learning about computational j…

 Uncategorized  Comments Off on learning about computational j…
Mar 122010
 

learning about computational journalism from @Hoenikker (for Turkers: positive sentiment)

© 2011 ladamic's blog Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha