Monthly Archives: March 2015

Short proposals, Gioia Stevens

Project Proposal #1: Topic modeling project

  1. Introduction

I would like to explore topic modeling for library search and discovery as an initial prototype project for the Graduate Center’s new institutional repository, Academic Works. Academic Works is a digital repository of the scholarly and creative works of CUNY Graduate Center faculty, students, and research centers. The Graduate Center Library administers this open access repository to preserve, showcase, and facilitate access to these works, which currently include articles, dissertations, and theses.

Academic Works allows users to browse across collections and disciplines and to enter key word searches across a particular series of texts or across the full repository. There is no more granular level of structured search and the repository does not offer any traditional subject headings or other classification scheme. This problem of limited search and discovery in digital repositories is not limited to Academic Works. The traditional methods of providing structured searching by topic through the use of hierarchical taxonomies have failed to keep pace with the explosion of digitized print publications and born digital texts. A researcher looking for information by topic in a large digital corpus is often at sea without a compass and cannot be sure that search results offer complete or accurate information. Academic Works needs better metadata!

  1. Set of personas

Andromeda Dissertation is a graduate student at the CUNY Graduate Center. She is planning her dissertation topic and she wants to consult Academic Works to see what other students at GC have done.

Professor Old Hat is not very excited about digital projects, but he thinks Academic Works sounds more convenient than going to the library to look at the print copies of the dissertations.

Faraway Researcher lives in another country and does not know anything about the CUNY Graduate Center. S/he comes to Academic Works after doing a search in Google Scholar.

  1. Use case scenario

Andromeda Dissertation is a graduate student in the English department at the CUNY Graduate Center. She is browsing Academic Works to look for recent dissertations on Walt Whitman’s Leaves of Grass. She looks at the discipline lists but discovers that she can go no further than an undifferentiated list of “Works in American Literature.” Annoyed, she starts typing in “Leaves of Grass” in the keyword search box. This does pull up one dissertation on Whitman, but it also yields several irrelevant results such as “How Important Is Land-Based Foraging to Polar Bears?” Andromeda laughs bitterly and loathes those idiots at the library, but then she notices an attractive visualization displaying a cloud of words representing topics in all of the English department dissertations. She finds not only Whitman, but several other topics related to her research which she had not thought to seek out through a key word search. She clicks on the visualization that takes her directly to the related section of the full text and begins exploring.

  1. How to make the full-fledged version

In the first phase of the project, I plan to focus on a test corpus of GC full text dissertations in Academic Works over a five-year period from 2009 to 2014. The prototype will then be used to launch a longer-term project based in the CUNY Graduate Center Library to implement topic modeling as an access tool for all dissertations in Academic Works. Academic Works will eventually contain the full corpus of past CUNY dissertations from 1965 to the present. It will also become the primary platform for the publication, dissemination, and preservation of all future CUNY dissertations. Creating better subject access to the dissertations through topic modeling will aid researchers and also provide an overview analysis of the history of scholarship at the Graduate Center. Other possible features of the full-fledged version would include building a metadata crosswalk from topic modeling results to standard controlled vocabularies such as Library of Congress Subject Headings or OCLC FAST (Faceted Application of Subject Terminology) Headings.

  1. Time estimate

Uncertain, but probably at least a year for the test phase with dissertations from 2009-2014. The larger project for all dissertations going back to 1965 is a long term project that would take several years.

Skills estimate

Known skills: XML/XSLT, MarcEdit, Excel, general metadata/controlled vocabulary knowledge

Skills I would need to learn: AntConc, Mallet, Gephi or other visualization tools. Also need to clear substantial technical and bureaucratic hurdles for integrating new search tool into Digital Commons repository platform. Building the metadata crosswalk would also require considerable additional exploration, consulting metadata experts at other libraries, and the acquisition of additional skills.

  1. How to make the stripped down version

A stripped down version would focus on a smaller test corpus of 377 dissertations and theses from 2010 and compare topic modeling results against author supplied key words, subject headings assigned in the ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database, and traditional Library of Congress Subject Headings assigned by GC librarians in the records in the CUNY catalog. In 2010, the library was still doing manual, original cataloging of each dissertation, but it had also begun the electronic dissertation deposit process which affords both full text searching and additional metadata (author keywords and ProQuest headings). This comparison of old and new methods would be a more systematic and traditional way to test topic modeling as a library classification tool, but the resulting project would take the form of writing an initial evaluation rather than building a functioning tool. This version of the project would be much simpler to do and it would eliminate the need to integrate a new feature into the Digital Commons repository platform.

  1. Time estimate: 6 months

Skills estimate

Known skills: XML/XSLT, MarcEdit, Excel, general metadata/controlled vocabulary knowledge

Skills I would need to learn: AntConc, Mallet, Gephi or other visualization tools 

  

Project Proposal #2: Mapping the History of NYC Islands

  1. Introduction

New York City is the nation’s largest urban archipelago, with dozens of small islands which are now mostly abandoned and off limits to the public. Many of the islands were once part of New York’s maritime and industrial economy or served to house hospitals, jails, military training centers, and graveyards. Abandoned 19th century buildings can be seen on some islands, while most are barren except for flocks of nesting birds. Over thirty small islands no longer exist at all because they were joined to the mainland using construction debris as landfill. Some islands played a more dramatic role in history, such as Big Tom Island which housed a munitions depot destroyed by German saboteurs in 1916.

This project will use maps to tell the history of these islands, uniting information from books, scholarly articles, newspapers, and archives. The project will be suitable for use in New York City history classes as well as appealing to scholars, NYC history buffs, eccentric tourists, and curious kayakers and bird watchers.

  1. Set of personas

Cassidy Commoncore is a social studies teacher in a NYC public middle school. She is always looking for new ways to teach students about the history and environment of NYC.

Horatio History is a native New Yorker and local history enthusiast. He is not an academic, but he devotes a lot of time to reading and research.

Tina Tourista is a visitor to NYC who is interested in the off-beat and forgotten aspects of the city’s history.

Birding Bob & Kayaking Karen are interested in NYC harbor islands as part of the city’s natural environment.

  1. Use case scenario

Cassidy Commoncore is a social studies teacher in a NYC public middle school. She is required to teach about the history and environment of NYC as part of the curriculum, but it is a struggle to find ways to keep students interested in the material. The Mapping the History of NYC Islands project is a free online tool that helps her students learn geography and history as well as exploring environmental issues such as protecting nesting harbor herons. Students can explore the islands through an online map of New York City and click on each one to see images, interesting facts, historical summaries, and links to further information.

  1. How to make the full-fledged version

The project will have an initial research phase to find and assemble information on the history of the islands from a variety of sources (online sources including Wikipedia, NYC history blogs and websites, scholarly and popular journal articles and books, and museum and archive collections). The building of the actual interface would involve using CartoDB or similar platform designed for story telling with maps

  1. Time estimate: 6 months to 1 year.

Skills estimate

Known skills: Research, writing, and presentation skills. Basic HTML, WordPress skills.

Skills I would need to learn: GIS skills/CartoDB, more advanced WordPress

  1. How to make the stripped down version

The stripped down version would limit the initial research phase to more readily available resources and save more labor-intensive research (such as visits to museums and archives) for a later phase. This version would focus on building the basic interface first and then expand and develop with additional content on an ongoing basis.

  1. Time estimate: 6 months.

Skills estimate

Known skills: Research, writing, and presentation skills. Basic HTML, WordPress skills.

Skills I would need to learn: GIS skills/CartoDB, more advanced WordPress

Anke’s Project Proposal #1: WordPress Framework with Commons and Annotation Tool for Literature Courses

Introduction

Effective close reading is a challenge in many literature classrooms. Before students can even start to discuss or write about a text they have to actively engage with it. But the problem is that the majority of students read texts on electronic devices, especially on their smartphones. Active reading and annotating are habits rarely seen anymore. I want to design a WordPress framework for literature courses that brings this practice back into the (online) classroom. It will include an annotation tool and student community function, so that students can annotate and comment on (parts of) class readings in an online community setting. After basic training in WordPress, instructors can fill in the existing framework with their own reading materials. This will save them a lot of time. It can also help the department streamline course design and requirements, and, most importantly, improve student performance.

Personas

  • Willy: a young parttime adjunct instructor in the English Department. Wants to teach with WordPress but does not have the time or expertise to build his own website from scratch. Has been given a mandatory reading list for a literature survey course—a requirement for the Gen Ed Curriculum. Because of this, his students will have a widely varying level of ability and interest in the subject. This framework can help him set up his course site, save him time, and give him an effective tool to work with students with varying skill sets.
  • Beatrice: a fulltime professor in the English Department. Invested in curriculum development and innovation. Currently serving on a committee to rethink the Gen Ed course offerings, reading lists, and course tools. The framework can provide a user-friendly and effective way to integrate technology into the classroom, and streamline the course offerings across the department but still offer each instructor/course the freedom to fill in the course in a way that fits their specific needs/course requirements.
  • Alex: a student. Junior, majoring in English. English is his first language and he generally does well in literature and arts classes. Likes to read. Likes to contribute to class discussions but is shy to speak up. Uses his tablet to read the texts. Online annotation would be a great addition to class participation for him and help him actively engage with the texts, and his peers, on his tablet.
  • Julia: a student. Freshman, majoring in engineering. Has to take literature to meet Gen Ed requirements. English is not her native language. Struggles with reading comprehension. Uses her smartphone to read the texts. Online annotation can help her comprehension of class readings, give her a way to show where she’s struggling with the text, and increase overall engagement in class, even when she’s working on a smartphone.

Use Case Scenario

Language and literature departments can offer this tool to their faculty. In addition, they would offer faculty an introductory workshop on how to use WordPress and this framework specifically. Instructors would then incorporate it in their course design and use it to read (parts of) the assigned readings with the students. Follow-up meetings can address issues of assessment, offer continuing support and function as a platform for new ideas and the sharing of experiences.

Students would access their course websites before class to read texts, annotate and comment on them, and comment on each others’ comments. Passages that many mark as difficult, relevant or otherwise noteworthy will receive special attention in class discussion. It helps student engage with the texts, and faculty align instruction with needs and experiences of students.

Full Version

For the framework to be able to offer a blog, annotation tool and community function to many classrooms, I would need a tablet/smartphone compatible multisite network on WordPress with an annotation tool plug-in and commons function. I have recently changed my course website (courseblogs.org) into a multisite but have not yet made any additional sites. It is already smartphone compatible, and my students already use it on their phones. A large multisite needs a strong multisite network administration. Once the site is up, this administration, plus support for faculty, would take the most time and resources.

Right now the only annotation plug-in that I know is Commentpress, which is not the most user-friendly nor easy to integrate with other functionalities such as a blog. There are other options, such as Social Reader (also from The Institute for the Future of the Book), PRISM (from the Praxis Program at U of Virginia), NowComment, and Annotate.co. I need to evaluate all the options, but in an absolute ideal situation I would be able to design the annotation tool also.

Since undergraduates cannot access the already existing CUNY commons, I want to integrate that function by installing Commons in a Box.

I think the biggest hurdle is to make such a multi-user site run smoothly and to integrate the various functionalities within framework.

Time and Skills

I have intermediate skills with WordPress but would need to learn more about these specific plug-ins. Commons in a Box has a lot of features so it takes some time to learn how to work with it effectively. I would also need to learn how to manage a multi-site and train faculty how to start using it.

As the goal is to offer a framework for various literature courses, I would have to sit down with faculty in charge of curriculum development and discuss the process of building, implementation, and support for faculty. Together we would draw up the design for the framework, so that it reflects the needs and desires of the department and/or the Gen Ed curriculum.

I think it would take 2-3 months to design and create the framework. The faculty workshops, site management and troubleshooting, and user support would be ongoing after implementation.

Minimally Viable Product

The stripped-down version would be a WordPress site with the same functionalities (blog, annotation, commons). Everything would be the same but it would not yet be a multi-site network. I can build out my website to include all the features I would like the framework site to have, and use reading material from a course I am currently teaching to give it content. This could also serve as a showcase for the extended version. I would have to familiarize myself with annotation tools and Commons in a Box and can experiment with it in my own classroom, but would not yet expand beyond my own use.

It would take me 2-3 weeks to build out my site, then a few weeks to test it in the classroom, and another 2-3 weeks to fine-tune it.

(For my other proposal I am working with Sarah so we will post that separately).

Wikipedia Edits Traced to 1 Police Plaza

With all the talk we have been having about Wikipedia editing…A friend tweeted this article about anonymous edits originating from 1 Police Plaza IP addresses, made to Wikipedia pages about stop and frisk, Eric Garner, Sean Bell, Amadou Diallo, Alexian Lien (the man who was accosted by motorcyclists—some off duty NYPD while on the West Side Highway with his wife and child in the car). What do you all think? Harmless or trying to rewrite history?

Here is the link to the article. It’s been reposted on other sites as well.

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/city-hall/2015/03/8563947/edits-wikipedia-pages-bell-garner-diallo-traced-1-police-plaza

Midterm Assignment: Short Proposals

As we have discussed, your midterm assignment is to create at least two different project proposals that each have at least two scope variations: one full and a reduced version.

Each of the (at least) two proposals should follow this structure:

  1. An introductory descriptive paragraph, which should include a problem statement, and say *what* your tool/thing will do. This is your abstract, or elevator pitch. This should not have the full theoretical framing of the project. That will come in the final.
  2. A set of personas
  3. A use case scenario (where would someone find your tool/thing and how would they use it). Keep it short.
  4. How you will make the full fledged version. This is your “ideal world” version that fulfills all of your visions and fantasies (what tools you will use, how you will get them, how confident you are that all the moving parts will work together, etc)
  5. Your assessment of how much time this will take, and how much of the skills you currently know and what you would have to learn.
  6. How you will make the stripped down version. The stripped down version is the minimally viable product. It is the most *bare bones* version to prove that what you are trying to get at is viable. (what tools you will use, how you will get them, how confident you are that all the moving parts will work together, etc)
  7. Your assessment of how much time this will take, and how much of the skills you currently know and what you would have to learn.

You are welcome (but not required) to repeat the last two steps with scope variations in-between the full fledged and bare bones version.

We would expect two proposals with two scope variations would be effectively in 4 to 7 page range (though you will be turning in online). We’re less concerned with page count, and more concerned with your process (as with all assignments in this class).

You will hopefully notice that you have done a lot of this work already. We’ve structured it this way. Your job here is to combine and revise the work you have already done, fill the holes, and assess each project’s feasibility

You can find examples of midterm proposals from last year here. I would highlight this one, and this one.

The proposals will be submitted as blog posts prior to class on March 18th.

Class that week will be dedicated to workshopping the proposals. The format we will follow will be that each participant will choose one of their two proposals to present orally. You will have 5 minutes to present, and we will have 4 minutes for feedback. Think of this as a pitch. You will want to lay out the project abstract, present very short versions of your personas, give one use case scenario, and then talk about how you would build it, and how long you think it would take.

Question on Project Abstracts/Short Proposals due March 18

I’d like to have some more information about what we need to do for this assignment. I know that we need to prepare “at least two different project proposals that each have at least two scope variations: one full and a reduced version.” What should the proposals include and what should we be prepared to present/discuss in class? Thanks.

Integrating Autism and Asperger’s Syndrome Into The Workplace

Wikipedia’s article on “High-Functioning Autism and Asperger’s Editor’s” was very insightful in terms of describing who these people are.

The article describes how these individuals are different and explained some of these differences at length.  It is good to know that these individuals are employed in the “real world”, have rights within workplaces, and have a sense of autonomy.

The article indicated that all of Wikipedia’s employees (neurotypical, autistic and Aspergers), are expected to be creative in their problem solving.  This concept of finding different ways to approach and solve problems are often applied to the ways we use technology.  It seems to me that because these high-functioning individuals “like to fix things” and are good with “data storage, processing, indexing and have rapid access” (memory) they could be innovatively inclined.

Now that many more individuals are born into the autism/Asperger categories, and information around their conditions is widely available on line, is it possible that greater understanding can help pave the way to help these individuals become contributors in all areas of society?  I wonder if this is the case how technology might be utilized, given their unique abilities, and how they might be trained to utilize their skill sets.

In the article “The 36 People Who Run Wikipedia” Stephen Lurie notes how the impossible is quite possible – success can happen when lots, and lots of people come together to make or build something, and in this case every single human being can share in the sum of all knowledge”!  Given their interactions at Wikipedia, and their way of “knowing stuff”, it is apparent that these individuals likely enjoy their work as much as others do, gain a sense of pride and I imagine are quite satisfied with their contributions.  In fact, the article calls for a certain “gentleness” when some fact they know may not be quite right.

I wonder if any of the Wiki Stewards are on the autism spectrum.

Wikipedia’s article indicates that autistic individuals are called out around behavioral issues, so given that skill set, it seems there are less reasons for autism/Asperger people to not be engaged within other communities.

Is Wikipedia too idealistic in its aims? Are Wikipedia editors equipped to deal with other editors on the spectrum?

When we were claiming blog topics at the beginning of the semester, I jumped on the opportunity to motivate the discussion on dystopic views of Wikipedia. After going through this week’s readings, though, I found that the positive and negative aspects of Wikipedia’s collaborative project are often inextricably linked.

As Joe Mullin’s article demonstrates, the Wikimedia Foundation doesn’t always make clear its positioning … to the point of hypocrisy. In Mullin’s discussion of Sarah Stierch’s termination, he quotes Wikimedia’s Senior Director of Programs, Frank Schulenberg, standing behind Wikimedia’s decision on the grounds that “it is widely known that paid editing is frowned upon by many in the editing community and by the Wikimedia Foundation,” while somewhat contradictorily spouting that “the Wikimedia movement is a place of forgiveness and compassion.” Well, apparently it wasn’t a place of forgiveness for Sarah Stierch. Clearly, though, paid editing is a potential problem. And I do mean potential, because who is going to determine if the editing itself is biased, meaning in violation of Neutral Point of View and/or Verifiability? Is the “bright line rule” (that paid advocates should limit their comments to  the “talk” page of an article) necessary? Presumably the Wikipedia community would eventually discover such biases and make the necessary changes to restore a NPOV. Should we believe that paid advocates will never adhere to the goodwill of Wikipedia’s guidelines?

I would also like to open up a discussion about Wikipedia’s democratic structures. We looked at the Categories for Deletion (CfD) discussion about American Women Novelists, the Article for Deletion discussion about David Horvitz, the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) discussion about the Gender Gap Task Force (GGTF), as well as multiple articles discussing the ArbCom decision surrounding GamerGate (Reddit thread, Mark Bernstein’s “Infamous”, and Alex Hern’s article). Is the existence of the Arbitration Committee a sign that the Wikimedia Foundation’s goodwill does not work? In particular, the ruling surrounding the GamerGate ArbCom decision are extremely upsetting. I don’t think that the banned editors were guiltless, but doesn’t the ruling seem to favor GamerGate? Is that my own perspective on the conflict and issues at hand, or is systemic bias more deeply ingrained than I thought?

I was very drawn to ThatPeskyCommoner’s article “Wikipedia:High-functioning autism and Asperger’s editors”, which humorously draws attention to the fact that Wikipedia editors do not always know how to effectively communicate. (I came to this realization myself while reading through the various discussion pages.) Are Wikipedia editors equipped to deal with other editors on the spectrum? Maybe it’s human nature and the complexity of human emotions, but the discussion pages on Wikipedia are filled with much more than just productive conversation.