Talk:Human–computer information retrieval

Avruch, could you please elaborate on your concerns regarding conflict of interest (e.g., could you suggest an appropriate reviewer?), notability (e.g., could you suggest someone whose assessment you would trust to be objective?), and the need for additional citations (are there particular statements that are lacking citation?)? (Dtunkelang (talk) 06:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC))

Not a concept

This is a Information retrieval technic but it doesn't require it's own article. I propose to merge the content of this article in isde IR. i⋅am⋅amz3 (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Disagree. HCIR is by definition the intersection of HCI/CHI and IR, which is why it now has its own ACM conference, CHIIR, jointly sponsored by SIGIR and SIGCHI. Dtunkelang (talk) 22:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Untitled

Some evidence of notability: HCIR was the subject of invited lectures at MIT, the University of Washington, and the University of Toronto; was the premise of a workshop conducted at MIT with participation from notable researchers at MIT, Microsoft, IBM, and other institutions; and represents a collection of related approaches (exploratory search, faceted search, and others) that have been the subjects of workshops at the main ACM conferences in IR and HCI (SIGIR, SIGCHI). One might debate the choice of label (e.g., can we lump this all under exploratory search), but the notability of the subject should be uncontroversial. Dtunkelang (talk) 12:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Its generally a good idea to provide a concrete assertion of notability at the beginning of an article. Its not that people checking for notability don't read the whole thing ('tho they may not) but mostly it just provides 'Why should I care?' right at the beginning. I think the article could stand some additional references, both for the purposes of verifiability and to back up your claim of notability. (I'm not sure that the community would agree necessarily that being the subject of guest lectures qualifies, but I'm assuming there are more published sources if it really is that prominent). Avruch^Talk 14:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I added what I hope serves as an assertion of notability at the beginning. I also reached out to researchers listed in the major figures who have no conflict of interest, and they were very positive about both the content and the tone of the page. On that basis, I removed the COI tag. I left the citations tag for now, since I agree that more citations would improve the entry, and I will try to work those in there in my next edit. Dtunkelang 17:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup tags

External links, particularly in the "Major figures" section, go against the external links guidelines, which prohibit external links outside the references and external links sections (there's another one in the main text that escaped my vigilance). The "Major figures" section, in fact, except for one wikilink, goes directly to the personal page of these "figures", which is not proper as anyone doing research in the field could just put their page there. The links need to be removed, and the inclusion into the "major figures" list should be supported by indepedendent reliable sources. Also, the section "External links" itself contains mostly old conferences links, conferences are intended as promotion and have a much lower level of peer-review than articles in established journals. In terms of providing Wikipedia readers with reliable info, they are not particularly useful links according to the guidelines again.

This brings me to the references. The "footnote" style is far from being up-to-date with proper citation guidelines using the <ref></ref> tags and {{cite}} templates. They also use bare URLs, which are subject to decay. Finally yes, there should be more citations by independent third party reliable sources. We have zero in the intro for example. The editors of this page may consider looking into WP:WIAGA for more ideas on how to make this article into the proper encyclopedic style.--70.80.234.163 (talk) 11:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the Major Figures section, despite my misgivings that doing so detracts from the usefulness of the entry. I've also removed external links from the main text. I believe these squarely address two of the three concerns above. As for the third concern, the claim that "conferences are intended as promotion and have a much lower level of peer-review than articles in established journals" is asserted without evidence and seems to reflect a lack of understanding of the roles of conferences and journals in computer science. Note: I wrote this on 27 September but forgot to log in and sign it, so doing so now. Dtunkelang (talk) 02:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I am well aware of the role of conferences and journals in science. However, per the external links guidelines, I highly doubt the relevance or usefulness of, for example, this link for a workshop from 3 years ago. Does the Mathematics article link to the 2008 Joint Mathematical Meetings? Does the Chemistry article link to the ACS National Meeting of 2008? Does the nuclear physics article link to the 2008 Annual Meeting of the Division of Nuclear Physics (oops! dead link!) of the American Physics Society? Those are much bigger events than these old workshops we have here, with undoubtedly large amounts of exciting new or recent research. But also a lot of not so useful, since forgotten articles, papers and presentations. The more important stuff eventually gets published in peer-reviewed journals and more importantly cited repeatedly by independent researchers. That's why you should link to important journals and societies rather than specific past workshops and conferences.--70.80.234.163 (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Would it satisfy you to limit the external links to a single link to *Workshops on Human Computer Information Retrieval? In the hope that is will, I've gone ahead and removed all other external links. Again, I feel like this be a loss for the web and for Wikipedia, but I'm happy to let others pick up that fight and find a way to strike a balance between optimizing the quality the entry and satisfying the Wikipedia guidelines. Dtunkelang (talk) 04:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that would be acceptable. It reduces the number of links and offers better coverage of recent research.--70.80.234.163 (talk) 10:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

This is to wp:preserve the Major Figures list in case that it can be recovered: Diego (talk) 16:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

=== Major figures ===

• James Allan
• Nicholas J. Belkin
• Pia Borlund
• Bruce Croft
• Marti Hearst
• Peter Ingwersen
• David Karger
• Juergen Koenemann
• Gary Marchionini
• Joemon Jose
• m. c. schraefel
• Ben Shneiderman
• Daniel Tunkelang
• Ryen White

As I noted in the previous comment, I think that retaining the Major figures section would improve the entry. But I don't want to get into a reversion war with the anonymous 70.80.234.163, who for all I know is an expert on both computer science and proper Wikipedia content guidelines. I'm just trying to make the web a better place, one Wikipedia entry at a time. Dtunkelang (talk) 02:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the idea of some "major figures" section, the issue with it is its use of external links that go directly to the individuals' webpages (except for the two with actual Wiki articles, one is pretty much a stub but appears to pass WP:PROF, the other seems like a solid article). Another issue, per the verifiability guideline is that to be considered a "major figure", you'd need it to be independently assessed by a third party, per the citation and reliable sources guidelines. Personal webpages provide neither.--70.80.234.163 (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm all for doing this in a way that corresponds to Wikipedia guidelines, but not if that means personally having to create Wikipedia entries for all of the notable people above who don't have them. Also happy to let independent third parties with appropriate domain knowledge make the judgment of notability -- should I put out a call to action on Twitter to recruit such judges? Dtunkelang (talk) 04:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to create articles if you can provide independent reliable sources that verify that this is a major figure in the field (the entries without articles would take the form "Name^{<ref>Cite</ref>}"; entries with articles can just be wikilinks without cites, as those should be provided in the biography article). But you'll have to get rid of the personal pages in that case (while any official page can be the top external link of a Wiki article about the person, provided that person passes WP:PROF and the bio article has reliable sources to prove it).--70.80.234.163 (talk) 10:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human–computer information retrieval. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080201153227/http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/mira/ to http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/mira/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)