an article by Bunty Avieson (University of Sydney, Australia) published in First Monday Volume 24 Number 5 (May 2019)
Abstract
When a major global news event occurs, such as the Easter bombings in Sri Lanka or the March shootings in New Zealand, Wikipedia contributors from around the world come together in a virtual newsroom to craft a narrative, followed closely by readers seeking the latest information. In any given month, the site’s most popular articles — both in number of views and number of edits — are those reporting breaking news.
Wikipedia’s protocols of ‘no original research’ mean the contributors must draw on the work of journalists, collating and re-purposing what has been published online.
Taking as a case study the 2014 Sydney hostage crisis this paper analyzes Wikipedia’s breaking news practices and the ways the Internet is changing perceptions of news.
Full text (HTML)
Showing posts with label Wikipedia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wikipedia. Show all posts
Tuesday, 7 May 2019
Tuesday, 16 April 2019
Wikipedia Isn't Officially a Social Network. But the Harassment Can Get Ugly
via ResearchBuzz: Firehose: Julia Jacobs in The New York Times
Aspiring contributors gathered at Columbia College Chicago to learn how to write and edit articles on Wikipedia. The event was organized by Art+Feminism, a campaign to improve the site’s representation of women and nonbinary individuals.Danielle Scruggs for The New York Times
In Wikipedia’s 18 years of existence, it has become a fixture in our lives: It ascends to the top of Google’s search results and provides answers to the questions we ask Alexa and Siri.
For Wikipedia’s editing community, the website is even more. It is a kind of social network where users debate the minutiae of history and modern life, climb the editorial hierarchy and even meet friends and romantic partners.
It is also a place where editors can experience relentless harassment. In 2016, Pax Ahimsa Gethen, a trans male Wikipedian, was persistently hit with personal attacks over several months. Mx. Gethen, 49, who uses the pronouns “they” and “them,” said the anonymous harasser posted that they were “insufferable” and “unloved,” that they belonged in an internment camp and that they should kill themself.
Continue reading
Aspiring contributors gathered at Columbia College Chicago to learn how to write and edit articles on Wikipedia. The event was organized by Art+Feminism, a campaign to improve the site’s representation of women and nonbinary individuals.Danielle Scruggs for The New York Times
In Wikipedia’s 18 years of existence, it has become a fixture in our lives: It ascends to the top of Google’s search results and provides answers to the questions we ask Alexa and Siri.
For Wikipedia’s editing community, the website is even more. It is a kind of social network where users debate the minutiae of history and modern life, climb the editorial hierarchy and even meet friends and romantic partners.
It is also a place where editors can experience relentless harassment. In 2016, Pax Ahimsa Gethen, a trans male Wikipedian, was persistently hit with personal attacks over several months. Mx. Gethen, 49, who uses the pronouns “they” and “them,” said the anonymous harasser posted that they were “insufferable” and “unloved,” that they belonged in an internment camp and that they should kill themself.
Continue reading
Thursday, 31 January 2019
Why Wikipedia’s Medical Content Is Superior
an article by Stephen Harrison for Slate [via Library Link of the Day]
According to Wikipedia administrator and attorney BD2412, a lawyer using Wikipedia to brush up on the law itself would probably be committing malpractice. For example, if a defense attorney skimmed the Wikipedia page for assault but did not review the precise elements of that crime or tort in their jurisdiction, it would be so irresponsible (and lazy) as to likely rise to the level of professional misconduct. As an attorney myself, I’d be tempted to hurl a casebook at our hypothetical lousy lawyer and tell him to stop giving the rest of us a bad name.
The same rationale, it seems, would apply to the medical profession. Like most encyclopedias, Wikipedia typically functions as a launch pad that provides a general overview of a topic and points to further or original sources. But at least one new study suggests that Wikipedia is superior to other medical sources in at least one key respect: short-term knowledge acquisition. That is, when it comes to finding the right answers quickly, Wikipedia seems to lead the pack. This suggests a new way of thinking about the utility of the crowdsourced encyclopedia. Wikipedia delivers value not only by offering massive amounts of information with its nearly 5.8 million English articles so far, but by providing the means for even professional users to quickly identify and retrieve the most relevant information.
Continue reading
According to Wikipedia administrator and attorney BD2412, a lawyer using Wikipedia to brush up on the law itself would probably be committing malpractice. For example, if a defense attorney skimmed the Wikipedia page for assault but did not review the precise elements of that crime or tort in their jurisdiction, it would be so irresponsible (and lazy) as to likely rise to the level of professional misconduct. As an attorney myself, I’d be tempted to hurl a casebook at our hypothetical lousy lawyer and tell him to stop giving the rest of us a bad name.
The same rationale, it seems, would apply to the medical profession. Like most encyclopedias, Wikipedia typically functions as a launch pad that provides a general overview of a topic and points to further or original sources. But at least one new study suggests that Wikipedia is superior to other medical sources in at least one key respect: short-term knowledge acquisition. That is, when it comes to finding the right answers quickly, Wikipedia seems to lead the pack. This suggests a new way of thinking about the utility of the crowdsourced encyclopedia. Wikipedia delivers value not only by offering massive amounts of information with its nearly 5.8 million English articles so far, but by providing the means for even professional users to quickly identify and retrieve the most relevant information.
Continue reading
Friday, 16 March 2018
Wikimedia's transparency report is a joy
a post by Cory Doctorow for the Boing Boing blog
Like many of the most popular websites, Wikimedia – which oversees Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons among other sites and services – publishes a transparency report in which it details commercial and governmental requests for surveillance and content removal.
But of course, Wikipedia is a wiki, meaning that the way you take something down is by editing the page, then defending your change in the comments for that page – not by asking the Lords of the Internet to get the food-coloring out of the swimming pool.
So Wikipedia's transparency report is something of a joy. I mean, how can you read this: “From July to December of 2017, we received 343 requests to alter or remove project content, seven of which came from government entities. Once again, we granted zero of these requests” and not rejoice?
Continue reading
Like many of the most popular websites, Wikimedia – which oversees Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons among other sites and services – publishes a transparency report in which it details commercial and governmental requests for surveillance and content removal.
But of course, Wikipedia is a wiki, meaning that the way you take something down is by editing the page, then defending your change in the comments for that page – not by asking the Lords of the Internet to get the food-coloring out of the swimming pool.
So Wikipedia's transparency report is something of a joy. I mean, how can you read this: “From July to December of 2017, we received 343 requests to alter or remove project content, seven of which came from government entities. Once again, we granted zero of these requests” and not rejoice?
Continue reading
Saturday, 10 February 2018
Wikipedia: An opportunity to rethink the links between sources' credibility, trust, and authority
an article by Gilles Sahut (Toulouse School of Education; University of Toulouse) and André Tricot (Toulouse School of Education) published in First Monday Volume 22 Number 11 (November 2017)
Abstract
The Web and its main tools (Google, Wikipedia, Facebook, Twitter) deeply raise and renew fundamental questions, that everyone asks almost every day:
This paper is focused on two scientific problems on this issue.
The first one is theoretical: to address this issue, many concepts have been used in library and information sciences, communication and psychology. The links between these concepts are not clear: sometimes two concepts are considered as synonymous, sometimes as very different.
The second one is historical: sources like Wikipedia deeply challenge the epistemic evaluation of information sources, compared to previous modes of information production.
This paper proposes an integrated and simple model considering the relation between a user, a document and an author as human communication. It reduces the problem to three concepts:
Full Text (HTML)
an article by Gilles Sahut (Toulouse School of Education; University of Toulouse) and André Tricot (Toulouse School of Education) published in First Monday Volume 22 Number 11 (November 2017)
Abstract
The Web and its main tools (Google, Wikipedia, Facebook, Twitter) deeply raise and renew fundamental questions, that everyone asks almost every day:
- Is this information or content true?
- Can I trust this author or source?
This paper is focused on two scientific problems on this issue.
The first one is theoretical: to address this issue, many concepts have been used in library and information sciences, communication and psychology. The links between these concepts are not clear: sometimes two concepts are considered as synonymous, sometimes as very different.
The second one is historical: sources like Wikipedia deeply challenge the epistemic evaluation of information sources, compared to previous modes of information production.
This paper proposes an integrated and simple model considering the relation between a user, a document and an author as human communication. It reduces the problem to three concepts:
- credibility as a characteristic granted to information depending on its truth-value;
- trust as the ability to produce credible information; [and]
- authority when the power to influence of an author is accepted, i.e., when readers accept that the source can modify their opinion, knowledge and decisions.
Full Text (HTML)
Wednesday, 11 October 2017
A river by any other name: Ganga/Ganges and the postcolonial politics of knowledge on Wikipedia
an article by Sangeet Kumar (Denison University, Granville, Ohio, USA) published in Information, Communication & Society Volume 20 Issue 6 (2017)
Abstract
The historically established relationship between knowledge and power has enabled critical scholars across disciplines to interrogate the ways in which knowledge has served as the handmaiden of various forms of power. The ways in which that relationship operates in the digital realm however remains to be fully understood.
This essay’s analysis of an edit war that occurred over the naming of the Wikipedia page on the Indian river Ganga, seeks to understand the operation of that relationship in the networked digital realm. Through analyzing the conflict and evaluating the different arguments proffered by the opposing sides in the debate, this essay attempts to uncover the contradictions within its desired goal of apolitical and neutral knowledge that Wikipedia is founded upon.
The analysis shows that debates on Wikipedia are invariably imbued with pre-existing entrenched ideologies thus ensuring that persistence and numerical strength outweigh evidence and the merit of an argument as determining factors. This holds crucial lessons for the imaginations of a plural and globally representative web that was supposed to challenge the inequities of the offline world.
Abstract
The historically established relationship between knowledge and power has enabled critical scholars across disciplines to interrogate the ways in which knowledge has served as the handmaiden of various forms of power. The ways in which that relationship operates in the digital realm however remains to be fully understood.
This essay’s analysis of an edit war that occurred over the naming of the Wikipedia page on the Indian river Ganga, seeks to understand the operation of that relationship in the networked digital realm. Through analyzing the conflict and evaluating the different arguments proffered by the opposing sides in the debate, this essay attempts to uncover the contradictions within its desired goal of apolitical and neutral knowledge that Wikipedia is founded upon.
The analysis shows that debates on Wikipedia are invariably imbued with pre-existing entrenched ideologies thus ensuring that persistence and numerical strength outweigh evidence and the merit of an argument as determining factors. This holds crucial lessons for the imaginations of a plural and globally representative web that was supposed to challenge the inequities of the offline world.
Tuesday, 25 July 2017
Wikipedia editing and information literacy: a case study
an article by Lydia Dawe and Ainslie Robinson (University of Notre Dame Australia, Fremantle, Australia) published in Information and Learning Science Volume 118 Issue 1/2 (2017)
Abstract
Purpose
This paper aims to evaluate the success of a Wikipedia editing assessment designed to improve the information literacy skills of a cohort of first-year undergraduate health sciences students.
Design/methodology/approach
In this action research case study (known hereafter as “the project” to differentiate this action research from the students’ own research), students researched, wrote and published Wikipedia articles on Australia-centric health topics. Students were given a pre- and post-test to assess levels of self-confidence in finding, evaluating and referencing information. Student work was also analysed in terms of article length and quantity and the type of information sources used.
Findings
Tests revealed that students’ self-confidence in their information literacy skills improved overall. Analysis of student work revealed that students wrote longer articles and incorporated more references than expected. References used were of appropriate quality relevant to the article despite minimal instructions.
Originality/value
There are few studies that investigate information literacy development through Wikipedia editing in Australian universities. This study shows that Wikipedia editing is an effective way to carry out student assessment prior to essay writing and an innovative platform to improve information literacy skills in undergraduate students.
Abstract
Purpose
This paper aims to evaluate the success of a Wikipedia editing assessment designed to improve the information literacy skills of a cohort of first-year undergraduate health sciences students.
Design/methodology/approach
In this action research case study (known hereafter as “the project” to differentiate this action research from the students’ own research), students researched, wrote and published Wikipedia articles on Australia-centric health topics. Students were given a pre- and post-test to assess levels of self-confidence in finding, evaluating and referencing information. Student work was also analysed in terms of article length and quantity and the type of information sources used.
Findings
Tests revealed that students’ self-confidence in their information literacy skills improved overall. Analysis of student work revealed that students wrote longer articles and incorporated more references than expected. References used were of appropriate quality relevant to the article despite minimal instructions.
Originality/value
There are few studies that investigate information literacy development through Wikipedia editing in Australian universities. This study shows that Wikipedia editing is an effective way to carry out student assessment prior to essay writing and an innovative platform to improve information literacy skills in undergraduate students.
Thursday, 13 June 2013
Time for Libraries to Take a Fresh Look at Wikipedia
an article in the Idaho Librarian by Alex Kyrios
Introduction
Baga, Hoover, and Wolverton recently assembled a “webliography” of free online resources for catalogers (Baga, Hoover, & Wolverton, 2013). The webliography is itself a very helpful resource, especially for institutions short on personnel, money, or both. But the authors neglected to mention a prominent source for cataloging tasks such as classification and authority control, as well as help for other library professionals, from reference librarians to resource selectors. Like those listed by Braga et al., this source is free online.
That resource is Wikipedia.
Wikipedia has been a fixture of the internet for years now. The site was formally launched on January 15, 2001. It came to prominence some years later and is, as of April 19, 2013, the sixth most popular website on the internet according to Alexa.com. (While Wikipedia is a multilingual project, with 286 languages represented as of April 19, 2013, this study will only examine the English Wikipedia, the largest and oldest version.) Perhaps the best known aspect of Wikipedia is its openness. Generally speaking, anyone may contribute to its encyclopedic articles by adding or removing anything. This fact colors most people’s judgments of the site. If you believe in the virtues of “crowdsourcing,” you’re likely to see Wikipedia as one of humanity’s most impressive knowledge-organizing ventures. But if you’re skeptical of crowd wisdom, you’re more likely to see the project as an impressive sandcastle on a beach, just waiting for a malicious child or the tides to destroy it. It would be wrong to discount the dangers Wikipedia’s open model represents. In most cases, there’s nothing stopping a person from adding false information (or deleting legitimate information) from an article, so taking anything on Wikipedia at face value is ill-advised. But it would equally be wrong to discount the legitimacy and utility of Wikipedia on such grounds.
It’s no wonder librarians can be skeptical of Wikipedia. At first glance, its mission seems incompatible with ours. Even as librarians make active efforts to engage users, such as through demand-driven acquisitions, the library remains a largely top-down model. Bibliographic experts select the best resources to make available to their users. No one would assert that every library resource is of unimpeachable reliability, but ideally, at least, every library book has an invisible seal of approval, an indication that the book is useful and good in some sense. (This can range from obvious quality educational materials, such as Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time, to popular leisure reading like the latest John Grisham novel, to primary source documents whose educational value is quite removed from its actual message, such as Mein Kampf.) But Wikipedia appears to have no such filters. In a system without the sort of filters that have served libraries so well, the reliability of information seems compromised. One popular writer has dismissed Wikipedia by summing up its philosophy as “Experts are scum” (Sjöberg, 2006). But this reflects a fundamental understanding of how Wikipedia works, even if it is one that many librarians may share. Used properly, Wikipedia can be a powerful tool for librarians of all types. And a librarian who knows how to make the most of Wikipedia can be a great resource for users of any library.
Continue reading
Introduction
Baga, Hoover, and Wolverton recently assembled a “webliography” of free online resources for catalogers (Baga, Hoover, & Wolverton, 2013). The webliography is itself a very helpful resource, especially for institutions short on personnel, money, or both. But the authors neglected to mention a prominent source for cataloging tasks such as classification and authority control, as well as help for other library professionals, from reference librarians to resource selectors. Like those listed by Braga et al., this source is free online.
That resource is Wikipedia.
Wikipedia has been a fixture of the internet for years now. The site was formally launched on January 15, 2001. It came to prominence some years later and is, as of April 19, 2013, the sixth most popular website on the internet according to Alexa.com. (While Wikipedia is a multilingual project, with 286 languages represented as of April 19, 2013, this study will only examine the English Wikipedia, the largest and oldest version.) Perhaps the best known aspect of Wikipedia is its openness. Generally speaking, anyone may contribute to its encyclopedic articles by adding or removing anything. This fact colors most people’s judgments of the site. If you believe in the virtues of “crowdsourcing,” you’re likely to see Wikipedia as one of humanity’s most impressive knowledge-organizing ventures. But if you’re skeptical of crowd wisdom, you’re more likely to see the project as an impressive sandcastle on a beach, just waiting for a malicious child or the tides to destroy it. It would be wrong to discount the dangers Wikipedia’s open model represents. In most cases, there’s nothing stopping a person from adding false information (or deleting legitimate information) from an article, so taking anything on Wikipedia at face value is ill-advised. But it would equally be wrong to discount the legitimacy and utility of Wikipedia on such grounds.
It’s no wonder librarians can be skeptical of Wikipedia. At first glance, its mission seems incompatible with ours. Even as librarians make active efforts to engage users, such as through demand-driven acquisitions, the library remains a largely top-down model. Bibliographic experts select the best resources to make available to their users. No one would assert that every library resource is of unimpeachable reliability, but ideally, at least, every library book has an invisible seal of approval, an indication that the book is useful and good in some sense. (This can range from obvious quality educational materials, such as Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time, to popular leisure reading like the latest John Grisham novel, to primary source documents whose educational value is quite removed from its actual message, such as Mein Kampf.) But Wikipedia appears to have no such filters. In a system without the sort of filters that have served libraries so well, the reliability of information seems compromised. One popular writer has dismissed Wikipedia by summing up its philosophy as “Experts are scum” (Sjöberg, 2006). But this reflects a fundamental understanding of how Wikipedia works, even if it is one that many librarians may share. Used properly, Wikipedia can be a powerful tool for librarians of all types. And a librarian who knows how to make the most of Wikipedia can be a great resource for users of any library.
Continue reading
Thursday, 23 May 2013
Improving large-scale search engines with semantic annotations
an article by Damaris Fuentes-Lorenzo, Norberto Fernández, Jesús A. Fisteus and Luis Sánchez (Carlos III University, Madrid, Spain) published in Expert Systems with Applications Volume 40 Issue 6 (May 2013)
Abstract
Traditional search engines have become the most useful tools to search the World Wide Web. Even though they are good for certain search tasks, they may be less effective for others, such as satisfying ambiguous or synonym queries.
In this paper, we propose an algorithm that, with the help of Wikipedia and collaborative semantic annotations, improves the quality of web search engines in the ranking of returned results.
Our work is supported by
To validate our approach we have implemented a system that can apply the algorithm to a particular search engine.
Evaluation results show that the number of relevant web resources obtained after executing a query with the algorithm is higher than the one obtained without it.
Highlights
► We present a ranking algorithm for large-scale web search engines.
► The algorithm is built upon disambiguation with Wikipedia and semantic annotations.
► We have not built a new search engine from scratch; ranking algorithm enhances existing search engines with a semantic layer.
► We focus on the suitability of the ranking for a large amount of data.
Abstract
Traditional search engines have become the most useful tools to search the World Wide Web. Even though they are good for certain search tasks, they may be less effective for others, such as satisfying ambiguous or synonym queries.
In this paper, we propose an algorithm that, with the help of Wikipedia and collaborative semantic annotations, improves the quality of web search engines in the ranking of returned results.
Our work is supported by
- the logs generated after query searching,
- semantic annotations of queries and
- semantic annotations of web pages.
To validate our approach we have implemented a system that can apply the algorithm to a particular search engine.
Evaluation results show that the number of relevant web resources obtained after executing a query with the algorithm is higher than the one obtained without it.
Highlights
► We present a ranking algorithm for large-scale web search engines.
► The algorithm is built upon disambiguation with Wikipedia and semantic annotations.
► We have not built a new search engine from scratch; ranking algorithm enhances existing search engines with a semantic layer.
► We focus on the suitability of the ranking for a large amount of data.
Wednesday, 28 November 2012
Using Wikipedia for extracting hierarchy and building geo-ontology
an article by Quoc-Hung Ngo (University of Information Technology, HoChiMinh City, Vietnam), Son Doan (University of California, San Diego, USA) and Werner Winiwarter (University of Vienna, Austria) published in International Journal of Web Information Systems, Volume 8 Issue 4 (2012)
Abstract
Purpose
This paper aims to serves two main purposes: First, it seeks to provide an overview of the location hierarchy from the highest divisions (continents) to the lowest divisions (wards, villages) in reality and in the Wikipedia pages. Secondly, it aims to introduce an approach to building a geographical ontology from Wikipedia.
Design/methodology/approach
The paper first reviews existing applications which extract information from Wikipedia and use it as a data resource to develop natural language processing tools. The paper also reviews the structure of Wikipedia pages which show the location’s information. Based on the analysis, the paper then proposes an approach to extract location hierarchy as well as geographical characteristics for the geo-ontology. The approach also rebuilds the relations between locations in the ontology.
Findings
Existing location name systems are mainly based on probabilistic locations, which are mined from the data and they lack the administrative relations between locations for full levels and all countries and territories. The literature review in geographical hierarchy and using Wikipedia for natural language processing tasks offers an approach to build a geographical ontology from Wikipedia pages. The proposed approach is believed to be the first which provides a full geo-ontology for all countries.
Practical implications
The paper builds a geo-ontology with full levels for all countries and territories. The administrative relations between locations are needed for real-world applications.
Originality/value
The comprehensive overview on existing work on geo-ontology provides a valuable reference for researchers and system developers in related research communities. The proposed approach to build a geographical ontology by using the Wikipedia offers a promising alternative to build a knowledge system from free online multi-language encyclopedia.
Hazel’s comment:
It sounds as though this would be a valuable tool in the hands of labour market researchers and also for guidance practitioners unsure of geography outside their own area.
Abstract
Purpose
This paper aims to serves two main purposes: First, it seeks to provide an overview of the location hierarchy from the highest divisions (continents) to the lowest divisions (wards, villages) in reality and in the Wikipedia pages. Secondly, it aims to introduce an approach to building a geographical ontology from Wikipedia.
Design/methodology/approach
The paper first reviews existing applications which extract information from Wikipedia and use it as a data resource to develop natural language processing tools. The paper also reviews the structure of Wikipedia pages which show the location’s information. Based on the analysis, the paper then proposes an approach to extract location hierarchy as well as geographical characteristics for the geo-ontology. The approach also rebuilds the relations between locations in the ontology.
Findings
Existing location name systems are mainly based on probabilistic locations, which are mined from the data and they lack the administrative relations between locations for full levels and all countries and territories. The literature review in geographical hierarchy and using Wikipedia for natural language processing tasks offers an approach to build a geographical ontology from Wikipedia pages. The proposed approach is believed to be the first which provides a full geo-ontology for all countries.
Practical implications
The paper builds a geo-ontology with full levels for all countries and territories. The administrative relations between locations are needed for real-world applications.
Originality/value
The comprehensive overview on existing work on geo-ontology provides a valuable reference for researchers and system developers in related research communities. The proposed approach to build a geographical ontology by using the Wikipedia offers a promising alternative to build a knowledge system from free online multi-language encyclopedia.
Hazel’s comment:
It sounds as though this would be a valuable tool in the hands of labour market researchers and also for guidance practitioners unsure of geography outside their own area.
Thursday, 4 October 2012
Wikipedia: Reflections on Use and Acceptance in Academic Environments
an article by Brian Whalley (University of Sheffield) published in Ariadne Issue 69 (July 2012)
In the light of a workshop run by the Geological Society of London and Wikimedia UK, Brian Whalley reflects on the attitudes and practice of academia in respect of present-day Wikipedia content.
Full text (HTML)
In the light of a workshop run by the Geological Society of London and Wikimedia UK, Brian Whalley reflects on the attitudes and practice of academia in respect of present-day Wikipedia content.
Full text (HTML)
Tuesday, 1 November 2011
Information quality assessment of community generated content: …
A user study of Wikipedia
an article by Eti Yaari, Shifra Baruchson-Arbib and Judit Bar-Ilan (Department of Information Science, Bar-Ilan University, Israel) published in Journal of Information Science Volume 37 Number 5 (October 2011)
Abstract
This study examines the ways in which information consumers evaluate the quality of content in a collaborative-writing environment, in this case Wikipedia. Sixty-four users were asked to assess the quality of five articles from the Hebrew Wikipedia, to indicate the highest- and lowest-quality article of the five and explain their choices. Participants viewed both the article page, and the article’s history page, so that their decision was based both on the article’s current content and on its development.
The analysis shows that the attributes that most frequently assisted the users in deciding about the quality of the items were not unique to Wikipedia: attributes such as amount of information, satisfaction with content and external links were mentioned frequently, as with other information quality studies on the web.
The findings also support the claim that quality is a subjective concept which depends on the user’s unique point of view. Attributes such as number of edits and number of unique editors received two contradictory meanings – both few edits/editors and many edits/editors were mentioned as attributes of high-quality articles.
an article by Eti Yaari, Shifra Baruchson-Arbib and Judit Bar-Ilan (Department of Information Science, Bar-Ilan University, Israel) published in Journal of Information Science Volume 37 Number 5 (October 2011)
Abstract
This study examines the ways in which information consumers evaluate the quality of content in a collaborative-writing environment, in this case Wikipedia. Sixty-four users were asked to assess the quality of five articles from the Hebrew Wikipedia, to indicate the highest- and lowest-quality article of the five and explain their choices. Participants viewed both the article page, and the article’s history page, so that their decision was based both on the article’s current content and on its development.
The analysis shows that the attributes that most frequently assisted the users in deciding about the quality of the items were not unique to Wikipedia: attributes such as amount of information, satisfaction with content and external links were mentioned frequently, as with other information quality studies on the web.
The findings also support the claim that quality is a subjective concept which depends on the user’s unique point of view. Attributes such as number of edits and number of unique editors received two contradictory meanings – both few edits/editors and many edits/editors were mentioned as attributes of high-quality articles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
