![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
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))
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. iâ amâ 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)
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)
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)
This is to wp:preserve the Major Figures list in case that it can be recovered: Diego ( talk) 16:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Humanâcomputer 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.â InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
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))
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. iâ amâ 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)
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)
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)
This is to wp:preserve the Major Figures list in case that it can be recovered: Diego ( talk) 16:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Humanâcomputer 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.â InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)