Talk:WMSCI
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Editing
It seems that WMSCI organizers, or their minions, are set on fighting a revert war here, but they haven't explcitly violated the 3RR. Is there something we can do? --Soultaco 17:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest expanding the page, adding more content and making sure that all of it is verified by external references. Then if they keep vandalising the paper we can have it locked. Amoss 11:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "and its colocated conferences"
.. there are a raft of them, here, which seem to have the same structure. The alphabet soup contains WMSCI, CISCI, PISTA, EISTA, CITSA, SEICI, RMCI, CCCT, EIC, FOSSTEC and SOIC. Probably don't need separate articles, but is it worth some mention? Signed, spammed again. .. actually, on that note, is it WP:Notable that these conferences are known to make use of spam? Is that documented? ( I couldn't find it anywhere except on blogs, which I won't quote here. ) The reason I ask is that when I was looking for information on SOIC, it would be useful to know if they are considered to be a spammer. 「ѕʀʟ·✎」
Concerning Spam: Well, I get Emails from WMSCI, and never subscribed to them. I get them via an Email-Adress which I use in Newsgroups. This is of course only one opinion. Although I am in the research field, I never get emails from other conferences. So this is somewhat strange, on behalf of the WMSCI. --Root 42 14:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Most definitely unsolicited. however, they have personally (!) claimed to opt-out for real this time. I suggested writing something about their email policy. It could be cited here. 「ѕʀʟ·✎」 20:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV
on 12 dec 2006 the NPOV tag was added by 68.36.88.93 with no comment (and no other relevant contributions).. should there be a discussion? 「ѕʀʟ·✎」 09:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the NPOV tag. I also made the last block of edits before it was added (which I assume that it applies to) so if anyone thinks that any part of the page is NPOV then please re-add the tag AND place some reasons here on the talk page. Amoss 00:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] New NPOV added
I just saw this article for the first time, and did some reading about the negative assertions. It seems that the information may be somewhat dated, especially since there is a discussion of the paper acceptance procedures on the 2008 conference web site (http://www.sciiis.org/wmsci2008/website/default.asp?vc=1). I also didn't see support for the assertion about per-paper fees; at least, it seemed to me that there is no paper fee for the primary author attending the conference. I also don't see any external references for a couple of the assertions ("...acceptance policy is far more liberal than that of most major computer science conferences, and it has been criticized..."). Metasav (talk) 03:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- You may need to use the way-back machine, it seems the relevant sites are completely revamped yearly. Perhaps some of it would need to change to past tense. As to the acceptance policy, the italicized quote from Dr. Callaos was in the wayback machine (it doesn't seem to be available at the moment) and agrees that non-reviewed papers were accepted. From what I gather from the 2008 policy, it seems that it has a major point of explaining why leaning towards the 'accept' rather than 'reject' option is a good thing overall. Anyways, some POV work could be done definitely, but I don't think we should remove things just because they aren't current or currently accessible. If there is no fee it should probably just be listed in the past tense if it is still notable. 「ѕʀʟ·✎」 18:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think pointing to the current acceptance policy notes would be a good idea, and also clearing up the note about paper fees. As for how they used to used to handle things, I suppose one could make an argument for keeping this information in an article for historical purposes if it is, as you suggest, converted to past tense. Metasav 19:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] other information needed
It would be helpful to have information about the acceptance rate of the conference (which appears to be ~ 100%). If this is not publicly known, perhaps that should be pointed out; legitimate conferences reveal their acceptance rates, at least in my area of computer science.
I think the article should explicitly discuss the SCIgen hoax and similar hoaxes (e.g., in the linked page by Justin Zobel), in which WMSCI accepted bogus papers.
It might also be noted that the qualifications of the conference chair, Nagib Callaos, are dubious. This post [1] turns up only a single paper by him, and finds it to be deeply confused and erroneous. Eclecticos (talk) 10:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
