Content analysis of Journal articles on Wiki in Science Direct Database

The study aims for analyzing the contents of articles on wiki that were published in the journals of science direct database, to find out the methods of research used, type of data analysis techniques used for wiki articles, most productive country contributing highest number of articles, highest contributing author, year wise publication, authors subject background etc.

Out of total 142 hits, from Science Direct database, the articles without having abstract and full text were excluded from the study and a total of 89 numbers of articles were analyzed. The study reveals that Majority of the articles on wiki are research articles and used Survey method. Again descriptive data analysis seemed to be the favored method used in majority of articles.

Germany and USA are the most productive country contributing majority of articles on wiki and majority of the authors contributing the articles on wiki are from Computer science background.

URL : http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1331/

Wikipédia, une encyclopédie collaborative en quête de crédibilité : le référencement en questions

L’encyclopédie Wikipédia se caractérise par un mode d’élaboration ouvert et collaboratif. La singularité de son modèle éditorial amène à s’interroger sur la crédibilité que lui attribuent ses lecteurs ainsi que sur l’activité normative de la communauté wikipédienne pour la garantir. Une hypothèse serait ainsi que le référencement est un moyen de renforcer la crédibilité des informations encyclopédiques, ce qui pose la question de l’identification de la fonction de ce procédé rhétorique par le lecteur.

Pour appréhender les questions relatives à la valeur épistémique de l’information, un modèle de communication documentaire articulant autorité cognitive, confiance, crédibilité et référencement est proposé. Une enquête par questionnaire auprès de jeunes scolarisés (11-25 ans) montre que la confiance envers Wikipédia varie selon le niveau de scolarité.

Elle est influencée par la réputation académique, majoritairement négative, de l’encyclopédie. Par la suite, les effets d’un projet pédagogique dans lequel des lycéens deviennent des contributeurs à l’encyclopédie sont analysés. Une évolution positive de la confiance envers l’encyclopédie est relevée tant chez les professeurs que chez les élèves, ceux-ci prenant conscience de l’importance des règles communautaires et du référencement.

Enfin, les évolutions des règles relatives au référencement au sein de la Wikipédia en langue française et les débats que ces règles ont suscités entre 2002 et 2013 sont étudiés. L’approche anthropologique et historique adoptée met en évidence le rôle central attribué au référencement pour faire face aux problèmes de confiance épistémique rencontrés par la communauté wikipédienne. Elles révèlent également les tensions inhérentes à ce projet éditorial.

URL : https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01257207

Wikiometrics: A Wikipedia Based Ranking System

We present a new concept – Wikiometrics – the derivation of metrics and indicators from Wikipedia. Wikipedia provides an accurate representation of the real world due to its size, structure, editing policy and popularity. We demonstrate an innovative mining methodology, where different elements of Wikipedia – content, structure, editorial actions and reader reviews – are used to rank items in a manner which is by no means inferior to rankings produced by experts or other methods. We test our proposed method by applying it to two real-world ranking problems: top world universities and academic journals. Our proposed ranking methods were compared to leading and widely accepted benchmarks, and were found to be extremely correlative but with the advantage of the data being publically available.

URL : http://arxiv.org/abs/1601.01058

The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration System: How Wikipedia’s reaction to popularity is causing its decline

Open collaboration systems like Wikipedia need to maintain a pool of volunteer contributors in order to remain relevant. Wikipedia was created through a tremendous number of contributions by millions of contributors. However, recent research has shown that the number of active contributors in Wikipedia has been declining steadily for years, and suggests that a sharp decline in the retention of newcomers is the cause.

This paper presents data that show that several changes the Wikipedia community made to manage quality and consistency in the face of a massive growth in participation have ironically crippled the very growth they were designed to manage. Specifically, the restrictiveness of the encyclopedia’s primary quality control mechanism and the algorithmic tools used to reject contributions are implicated as key causes of decreased newcomer retention.

Further, the community’s formal mechanisms for norm articulation are shown to have calcified against changes – especially changes proposed by newer editors.

URL : https://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline/halfaker13rise-preprint.pdf

Wikipedia: the difference between information acquisition and learning knowledge

This paper attempts to define Wikipedia in an information literacy context by providing an analysis of learning knowledge and Wikipedia’s structure. The distribution of learning in the digital information age is a core topic for scholarly communication. It is highly relevant to students, citizens and instructors in their roles as users of content and as creators of content.

Even though it appears to be far removed from traditional publishing in the print world, many students, citizens and instructors use digital information tools to share aspects of their works in a way that is defined as publishing. Understanding the difference between information acquisition and learning knowledge are essential in educational settings.

URL : http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/4875

Wikipedia and the ecosystem of knowledge

Thanks to a vibrant community united by a few core principles, plus detailed policies and safeguards against trolls and vandalism, Wikipedia has already become a piece of the knowledge ecosystem. Like science, its aim is to propose a synthesis of existing knowledge and conflicting interpretations of reality. It also changes the way people interact with knowledge thanks to its extensive use of hyperlinks, portals, and categories.

As a consequence, I suggest academics contribute to articles in their field. They could also use Wikipedia as a course assignment and make sure that the topics related to their discipline are fairly presented in this encyclopedia.

URL : Wikipedia and the ecosystem of knowledge

Alternative location : http://src-online.ca/index.php/src/article/view/201

Content Volatility of Scientific Topics in Wikipedia: A Cautionary Tale

Wikipedia has quickly become one of the most frequently accessed encyclopedic references, despite the ease with which content can be changed and the potential for ‘edit wars’ surrounding controversial topics. Little is known about how this potential for controversy affects the accuracy and stability of information on scientific topics, especially those with associated political controversy. Here we present an analysis of the Wikipedia edit histories for seven scientific articles and show that topics we consider politically but not scientifically “controversial” (such as evolution and global warming) experience more frequent edits with more words changed per day than pages we consider “noncontroversial” (such as the standard model in physics or heliocentrism).

For example, over the period we analyzed, the global warming page was edited on average (geometric mean ±SD) 1.9±2.7 times resulting in 110.9±10.3 words changed per day, while the standard model in physics was only edited 0.2±1.4 times resulting in 9.4±5.0 words changed per day. The high rate of change observed in these pages makes it difficult for experts to monitor accuracy and contribute time-consuming corrections, to the possible detriment of scientific accuracy. As our society turns to Wikipedia as a primary source of scientific information, it is vital we read it critically and with the understanding that the content is dynamic and vulnerable to vandalism and other shenanigans.

URL : Content Volatility of Scientific Topics in Wikipedia: A Cautionary Tale

DOI : 10.1371/journal.pone.0134454