Talk:Social network change detection

Adding figures

I am a master student at the social computing class and I am starting to improve this article. This article needs several images to be illustrative. for example, a sample of the control charts can make the article more understandable. Lav71 (talk) 02:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I am the same with you, having social computing class in University of Pittsburgh now.

Except for images, I think we could also add some details from papers mentioned in the references to this page and recognize them a little bit.--Xynoci (talk) 06:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I am same with you guys come from social computing class. I agree with that we should add pictures.I plan to revise the Reference, some of the citations do not follow Scientific citation guidelines. Moreover, some of the citations should be put in the "Notes" part instead of " References" by the manual of layout. Some internal links can be added such as statistical process control.Lovesocialcom (talk) 04:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Broad in coverage

I also believe that the subject is not explained very well. the examples that are given are not clear and are very brief. they don't explain the main subject very well. I would elaborate more about the examples. Lav71 (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree with you. I suggest that the main content start with a brief Introduction of SNCD, then the Methods used in this approach, such as ones dealing with graph and statistical process control. Social Network Change Detection (McCulloh, I., and Carley, K.M. (2008)) is a good Implementation of SNCD, and I think his research based on e-mail network and Al Qaeda could be part of this article. I will go through this paper and do some editing based on it. --Xynoci (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I find another paper of McCulloh. Detecting Changes in a Dynamic Social Network(Kathleen M. Carley, Chair Carolyn ,RoseCosma ,Shalizi (Statistics),Kevin Huggins (U.S. Military Academy) (2009)(CMU-ISR-09-104)). We can use this paper to elaborate the article and add some examples. I will go through this article and contribute to the article.Lovesocialcom (talk) 01:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit references and notes

I plan to revise the Reference, some of the citations do not follow Scientific citation guidelines. Moreover, some of the citations should be put in the "Notes" part instead of " References" by the manual of layout. Some internal links can be added such as statistical process control.Lovesocialcom (talk) 01:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Merge into Social Network Analysis

I'm a graduate student in the social computing class as well with you guys. I agree with all you have said. I'm not sure if you have noticed a suggestion at the very beginning of the article. It might be a good idea to follow Wiki's suggestion to do the modification. So I'm think of working on the relation of this article with Social Network Analysis and combine these two articles. I will continue exploring more, especially adding more details into it. Rjz0170 (talk) 01:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Lav71 has asked me about how to merge these two. I haven't decided yet. At this point, I'm thinking that after we finish all the modifications that we have agreed on, we just move all the content under Social network change detection to Social network analysis as a new section of it, after the Practical applications part.Rjz0170 (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC) However, I'm not sure if we decide to merge these two, whether we need to remove the Social network change detection article. I'll email the instructor to see which is appropriate. Rjz0170 (talk) 18:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we could add a link pointing to this article to see also section on Social Network Analysis, and adding a brief introduction to the Practical applications part is also a good idea. See what the instructor would say.--Xynoci (talk) 01:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I have checked with the instructor and she said we don't need to merge the article at this point. I think your idea is great.Rjz0170 (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Divide sections

As suggested by Xynoci, we can divide the article into different sections and expand each more. Begin with an Introduction, followed by Method, and demonstrated by Examples, which are Columbia University example and the US Military Academy's Network Science Center, and we can look for more. Also, we can have Impact, which explains the influence of SNCD, History, which is the development history of the concept SNCD, and more.Rjz0170 (talk) 02:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC) This is important to this article since the outline of the article is terrible, i agree with that . However, i think the introduction should followed by "Birth" then demonstrated by "Examples".Lovesocialcom (talk) 02:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC) Yes, sure. I just suggested with some possible sections. The order of those sections are not determined. We can improve them to make them go smoothly. Rjz0170 (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I think this layout works out great, I am planning on starting the introduction based on the papers we agree on. Lav71 (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Since this method may be a newly raised method with short history, could we just put introduction and birth altogether at the very beginning of this page? --Xynoci (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

That's a good point. Let's do that. Rjz0170 (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Just put this two parts into "Introduction"?Lovesocialcom (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

That works! Rjz0170 (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I tried to look for more "wiki-flavored" section scheme, and I found Statistical process control looks good. Brief introduction at the beginning, then Overview, Limitations, Application, and so on. What do you think? --Xynoci (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems great. We can follow this structure. Rjz0170 (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Broken link

there is a link in the article which is pointing to a wikipedia article that is no longer available. the link is Network Science Center. I will remove the hyperlink.Lav71 (talk) 17:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

When to start edit

Do we need to start edit the article?Lovesocialcom (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

well as the third and final step, we have to edit the article. but I believe we first need to come up with a straight forward plan on what we want to do. Lav71 (talk) 23:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Add importance and method

I plan to add the importance and method of SNCD, but i am not sure how to arrange this two sections, do you have suggestions?Lovesocialcom (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

If we do as Xynoci suggested, we can put both the sections you mentioned above into Overview part. What do you think?Rjz0170 (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

We can refine information from the article so that we can put it into "Overview" part.Lovesocialcom (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Action Plan

I believe there are two general steps in bringing this article closer to the good article criteria, the steps are: (I've mentioned people who had suggestions about each item)

1- correcting the mistakes

• change the citations so they follow the scientific citation guideline (Lovesocialcom)
• fix the broken link in the article (Lav71)

2- improvement

• coming up with a general standard outline for the article (Rjz0170)
• adding figures (Lav71)
• make a broader coverage by reading more papers and wikipedia articles and adding more to the article (Xynoci)(Lovesocialcom) (Lav71) (Rjz0170)
• combine the results and edit the article

please feel free to add more steps. if we agree on this, we will start editing the article. Lav71 (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Lav71 for listing all the modifications that we are going to do. That's great, making the plan more clear. I'm just wondering whether we need to merge SNCD into Social Network Analysis. Any idea?Rjz0170 (talk) 00:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

It's great, thanks Lav71! I think we can add a link pointing to this article to see also section on Social Network Analysis. Since 1)they are highly related and SNCD is a more specific method; 2) Social Network Analysis is a more general category and mainly talks about major concepts.--Xynoci (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we could work separately on these four parts: brief intro and Overview(summarized introduction on concepts, approaches and development), Limitations, Application(there are two experiments conducted by McCulloh, I., and Carley, K.M. (2008)) first, and take care of See also and References at the same time. After that we should have understood this method well. Then we can make some final corrections together. What do you think?--Xynoci (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC) Thank you (Lav71), but i don't think it is necessary to merge into "social network analysis".Lovesocialcom (talk) 01:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

You are correct Lovesocialcom. I have checked with the instructor and she said we don't need to merge at this point, just work on other aspects. Rjz0170 (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I can work on the Limitation part, if it's okay with you guys, to see what I can get. Rjz0170 (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Related concepts

As been inspired by today's lecture, I think it might be a good idea to add some concepts that we were talking about in class. For example, structural hole, bridge and broker, which are some indicators of the change of social network and can be used for SNCD. What do you think? Rjz0170 (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Nice point. I think they are graph-related concepts, which certainly could be used in network analysis, but I am not very sure whether it is appropriate to put them here. Besides, I tried to look for them in wiki and found these two Bridge (graph theory) and Structural holes. --Xynoci (talk) 04:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Xynoci! As those concepts have existed as independent articles, we can put them into See Also part. Rjz0170 (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Decision of changes

As the instructor said in the email that we need this part to set three major changes we are going to make, I'm adding this section, mainly just to conclude what we have discussed and generalize three points from Lav71's Action Plan part and all the following discussions.

1. Coming up with a general standard outline for the article: Overview, Applications, and Limitations, and taking care of See also and References afterwards;

2. Broaden the coverage of the article by reading more papers and wikipedia articles and add them to each section of the article, including adding some figures;

3. Correcting some mistakes, including making citations to follow the scientific citation guideline and fix the broken link in the article.

Please feel free to make any changes to this part. Rjz0170 (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe this sums up our agreed action plan very well. Lav71 (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi everyone, since we are starting editing this article, do you have any preferences which part you want to do? Let's divide the work! Lav71, Lovesocialcom, Xynoci Rjz0170 (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I think our major tasks are Overview, Applications, and Limitations, and we can take care of the other two parts along with our editing process. Since we have four members in our group, could we separate the Applications section into two parts, each of which contains one or two experiments? If this way could work, I'd like to take one from those two parts. --Xynoci (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by experiments?Lovesocialcom (talk) 04:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I mean different real word examples. It's applications on different dataset. --Xynoci (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi everyone Lav71, Lovesocialcom, Rjz0170, let's start working on our article. I will modify Applications part based on these two datasets, Leav 07 and Al-Qaeda, from McCulloh, I. (2009)'s work to demonstrate SNCD. --Xynoci (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I will try to get the Limitations part done! Rjz0170 (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I decide to write about the data set Fraternity instead of Leav 07 to make these examples have a broader coverage on different types of data sets. --Xynoci (talk) 03:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Since CUSUM is used in our Applications section and EWMA is also mentioned and compared with the former one by McCulloh, I. (2009) in that paper, section 4, I think it would be great if we can show their differences to wikipedia readers. In this case, we have two sections left, Overview and SPC Methods(TBD).Lav71, Lovesocialcom, Rjz0170 --Xynoci (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I am working on the Limitations part. Probably Lav71 and Lovesocialcom can work on the other two parts. Rjz0170 (talk) 16:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I will take care of Overviewpart.Lovesocialcom (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

To ensure each section compatible with the others

We can add contents that are possibly relevant to other sections in the article here to keep different sections compatible with each other.

Could be relevant to Overview and Limitations:

In Applications section, CUSUM procedure is used. The optimality constant is set to k=0.5, and different decision intervals are applied to compare varies in sensitivity of parameters. --Xynoci (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Probably it's a good idea to explain in full words what CUSUM is. According to Social Network Change Detection by Ian A. McCulloh and Kathleen M. Carley, CUSUM is the cumulative sum. Rjz0170 (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I just have a question. How do we give comments or suggestions to other's work? In everyone's sandbox? Rjz0170 (talk) 16:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Working process

Hi guys, Xynoci, Lav71, Lovesocialcom. I have put my part of Limitations in my sandbox. Please review it and give some comments and suggestions. Of course, that's not the final version. I will continue working on it.Rjz0170 (talk) 17:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems like we do not have permission to access other's sandbox. What if you put them into the main page of the article? --Xynoci (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Seems that we can't access to your sandboxLovesocialcom (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC) Thank you guys. Yeah I have realized that so I have put my part into the main page of the article, the Limitations and Future work part.Rjz0170 (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

picture copyright

Hi gurs,Xynoci,Lav71,Rjz0170,seems that we directly use some pictures from McCullon's article, is it legal?Lovesocialcom (talk) 01:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Lovesocialcom, it is a very important question and I also have some doubts upon it. But I tend to believe it is legal. I tagged them under CC BY 3.0 license which requires that "You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use." Since we have permission to access to this paper freely, and I noted that the author is McCullon as well as the link to the .pdf file, I believe it is legal. You can check details of one picture here. We can modify them if I was wrong. --Xynoci (talk) 02:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Xynoci! Since i also want to add picture in the overview part.Lovesocialcom (talk) 05:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi guys, Xynoci,Lav71, Lovesocialcom, talking bout copyright, I have some questions about our citation. Do we need in-line citation? I mean, do we need to cite every part that we get from a paper or article? Besides, I noticed that the original article (the Social network change detection article before our modification) had some parts directly from those cited paper. Can we do that? Or we need to paraphrase them? Rjz0170 (talk) 03:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Also I add one more reference and changed the order a little. That may effect the order number of the citations. Lovesocialcom, I saw you used in-line citation in your overview, background and history part. My change may affect your work. Could you please double check the reference order and make some modifications? Thank you! Rjz0170 (talk) 05:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC) It's fine, feel free to change it, i will check it again before the due.Lovesocialcom (talk) 05:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

My in-line citation in the fourth point in Limitations and the second paragraph in Future work are the same. But Wiki insists giving two different numbers for the same citation. Do you guys know how to fix it? Rjz0170 (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.casos.cs.cmu.edu/publications/papers/CMU-CS-08-116.pdf, http://www.casos.cs.cmu.edu/publications/papers/CMU-ISR-09-104.pdf and this book published in 2009. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: L235, I saw your close of the merge discussion at Talk:Social network analysis. Nevertheless, I could see no sensible way forward here other than redirecting this to that page. It's been a copyvio from the day it was created, with a lot more added recently. Of course, there's nothing to stop someone turning the redirect back into an article in the future. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)