Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-02-20/Recent research
This is a draft of a potential Signpost article, and should not be interpreted as a finished piece. Its content is subject to review by the editorial team and ultimately by JPxG, the editor in chief. Please do not link to this draft as it is unfinished and the URL will change upon publication. If you would like to contribute and are familiar with the requirements of a Signpost article, feel free to be bold in making improvements!
|
A monthly overview of recent academic research about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects, also published as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter.
2018 research studies begin making their appearance
The study of controvery
"Computing controversy: Formal model and algorithms for detecting controversy on Wikipedia and in search queries"
- Reviewed by Barbara Page
Applying a mathematical model to Wikipedia talk page controversies has the potential of incorporating a 'controversy' metric in web-searches. This should give those searching for information on a topic to quickly assess controversial topics. Wikipedia provides researchers with accessible and historical controversial discussions. The authors further describe their work: "[Assessing] the controversy should offer [readers] a chance to see the “wider picture” rather than letting [them] obtain one-sided views." The authors' conclusions were: "Our approach can be also applied in Wikipedia or other knowledge bases for supporting the detection of controversy and content maintenance. Finally, we believe that our results could be useful for...understanding the complex nature of controversy..."[1]
- ^ Zielinski, Kazimierz; Nielek, Radoslaw; Wierzbicki, Adam; Jatowt, Adam (2018). "Computing controversy: Formal model and algorithms for detecting controversy on Wikipedia and in search queries". Information Processing & Management. 54 (1): 14–36. doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2017.08.005.
Students edit but still doubt the value of Wikipedia
"Wikipedia in higher education: Changes in perceived value through content contribution"
- Reviewed by Barbara Page
Students are a convenient group to study, especially if being studied is part of the syllabus. The 240 students in this study readily admitted to using Wikipedia as a resource even though they did not be consider it to be 'reliable and trustworthy'. Using Wikipedia as a resource does not necessarily encourage content contributions by students. In addition, when the students in this study actually added content, their perceptions of the reliability and usefulness of Wikipedia did not change.[1]
- ^ Soler-Adillon, Joan; Pavlovic, Dragana; Freixa, Pere (2018). "Wikipedia in higher education: Changes in perceived value through content contribution". Comunicar (in Spanish). 26 (54): 39–48. doi:10.3916/c54-2018-04. ISSN 1134-3478. English version here
Researching the research
"Excavating the mother lode of human-generated text: A systematic review of research that uses the Wikipedia corpus"
- Reviewed by Barbara Page
The amount of research that uses Wikipedia as a source of data continues to grow and enough scholarly content now exists that systematic reviews are available. Computer science has especially been quick to see the potential of this 'mother lode' and how it can be used to study information retrieval, natural language processing, and ontology building. The reference section in this article itself makes interesting reading if only to appreciate the collection of data sets and other research that that exists and continues to expand.[1]
- ^ Mehdi, Mohamad; Okoli, Chitu; Mesgari, Mostafa; Nielsen, Finn Årup; Lanamäki, Arto (2017). "Excavating the mother lode of human-generated text: A systematic review of research that uses the wikipedia corpus" (PDF). Information Processing & Management. 53 (2): 505–529. doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2016.07.003.
Sneaky editing and masking bias
"Persistent Bias on Wikipedia: Methods and Responses"
- Reviewed by Barbara Page
Apparently, Wikipedia editors are not the only ones who have observed biased editing. The author of this research article used his own article as a case study and example of biased editing. It is no surprise that an editor can 'nominally' follow editing guidelines to maintain their bias. Here is the 'how to' on such behavior:
- deleting positive material
- adding negative material
- using a one-sided selection of sources
- exaggerating the significance of references and topics
Those who are biased sometimes support their editing even in 'the face of resistance'. This is done by:
- reverting edits
- selectively invoking Wikipedia rules
- overruling (bullying?) resistant editors
When bias is challenged by other editors, the strategies for dealing with it is making complaints, 'mobilizing counterediting', and exposing the bias. The authors' stinging conclusion speaks for itself: "It is worthwhile becoming aware of persistent bias and developing ways to counter it in order for Wikipedia to move closer to its goal of providing accurate and balanced information."[1]
- ^ Martin, Brian (2017). "Persistent Bias on Wikipedia: Methods and Responses" (PDF). Social Science Computer Review.
Seeking credibility
"Information Fortification: An Online Citation Behavior"
- Reviewed by Barbara Page
This study is a rebuttal to another position paper by Forte and Bruckman related to the use of citations on Wikipedia. Citing sources is associated with other issues of bias and identifies the patterns used to in citing sources to encourage and even fabricate controversy. This study was limited to non-scientific topics and used data derived from edit logs, interviews and text analysis. "[I]nformation fortification [is] a concept that explains online citation activity that arises from both naturally occurring and manufactured forms of controversy."[1]
- ^ Forte, Andrea; Andalibi, Nazanin; Gorichanaz, Tim; Kim, Meen Chul; Park, Thomas; Halfaker, Aaron (2018-01-07). "Information Fortification: An Online Citation Behavior" (PDF). ACM: 83–92. doi:10.1145/3148330.3148347. ISBN 9781450355629.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires|journal=
(help)
Conferences and events
See the research events page on Meta-wiki for upcoming conferences and events, including submission deadlines.
Other recent publications
Other recent publications that could not be covered in time for this issue include the items listed below. contributions are always welcome for reviewing or summarizing newly published research.:Compiled by [[User:|User:]]
- "Title of article"<ref></ref> From the abstract: "snippets" and below:
- "Time-focused analysis of connectivity and popularity of historical persons in Wikipedia"[1] From the abstract: "Our study sheds new light on the characteristics of information about historical people recorded in the English Wikipedia and quantifies user interest in such data. We propose a novel style of analysis in which we use signals derived from the hyperlink structure of Wikipedia as well as from article view logs, and we overlay them over temporal dimension to understand relations between time periods, link structure and article popularity."
Discuss this story
"The best content is developed through civil collaboration between editors who hold opposing points of view."
-- BullRangifer. From WP:NEUTRALEDITORReferences
{{cite journal}}
: Check|issn=
value (help){{citation}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
(help){{citation}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
(help){{citation}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
(help)